SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 13087

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SVP
JASHVANTRAY CHAMPAKLAL PANDYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent



Petitioner Advocates:MR JAYESH A DAVE(253) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 855 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

==========================================================

JASHVANTRAY CHAMPAKLAL PANDYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR JAYESH A DAVE(253) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Date : 12/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1] This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 07-05-2010 passed by learned Special Judge (ACB) & Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 12 of 1996, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as ‘the PC Act’). The learned Trial Court has sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.9,000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.9,000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

1.1] The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:-:

2.1] The accused was the Principal of Badadiya Primary Boys' School and was a public servant. The complainant - Harjibhai Laljibhai Varsani, a resident of Badadiya, Taluka: Bhuj, District: Kachchh had two sons namely Bhavesh and Milan, and both the sons were studying in Badadiya Primary School. The complainant was desirous of getting them admitted in another school and on 28-06-1995 at around 09:00 am, went to the Badadiya Primary School and met the accused and requested him for the school-leaving certificate of both his sons. The accused demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.100/- per certificate and asked him to come on the next Friday. On 30-06-1999 at around 09;00 am, the complainant went to the Badadiya Primary Boys' School and the accused gave the School Leaving Certificate of his son Bhavesh and accepted an amount of Rs.50/- for the same. The accused told the complainant that the book of the school-leaving certificate was over and called him on the next day for the other certificate. The complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and went to the ACB Police Station, Bhuj and the complaint of the complainant was recorded on 30-06-1995.

2.2] The Trap Laying Officer, Devisinh Ladhusinh Solanki, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station called the panch-witnesses and the complainant gave one currency note of the denomination of Rs.50/-. Police Constable Hitendrasinh Jethva under the instructions of the Trap Laying Officer explained the characteristics of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp to the complainant and the panch-witnesses and the demonstration of ultraviolet lamp and anthracene powder was conducted in their presence. The currency note of the denomination of Rs. 50/- was smeared with anthracene powder and folded and placed in the left pocket of the bushshirt of the complainant. The necessary instructions were given by the Trap Laying Officer to all concerned and the Panchnama Part - I was drawn on 01-07-1995 between 07.30 am and 08.30 am. As decided, the complainant and the shadow witness went on the Luna of the complainant and the Trap Laying Officer, the o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top