Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shaifuddin Jakyuddin Dahodwala on 9 January, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1058/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1058 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHAIFUDDIN JAKYUDDIN DAHODWALA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR G RAMAKRISHNAN(1390) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HITESH L GUPTA(3937) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4
MR NAYAN L GUPTA(11798) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 09/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar for the offence punishable under Sections 489A, 489B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in Sessions Case no.40 of 2009.
2. The case of the complainant is that Jatin Raval of Atlantica Shipping Private Limited, on 04.11.2000, had deposited money in SBS Bank vide two Challan. The total amount which was deposited was Rs.2,99,000/-. Out of the amount so deposited, six of the Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:17:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1058/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined packets were found to be stitched, while one of the packet seemed to be unstitched. The slip of the party was attached on the amount deposited. As per the prosecution, out of notes of the denomination of Rs.500/-, 93 notes were found to be suspicious. Thus, the fake notes were taken as evidence by the prosecution. The charge was framed against 4 accused below Exh.31.
3. The complaint was filed by the Chief Cashier, PW1 Harishbhai Indulal. As per the evidence of the Cashier, on 04.11.2000, in his branch, Meeraben had informed that one Jatinbhai of Atlantica Shipping Private Limited of Gujarat Maritime Board had come to deposit Rs.2,99,000/- and out of that, 93 notes were found suspicious and those were the fake notes. He along with Meeraben, approached the Chief Manager Shri Vadher and as per his deposition, Shri Vadher has informed "C" Division Police Station telephonically about the fake notes and thereafter, a complaint was given. PW1 placed Exh.47 the complaint in evidence. According to the cross-examination, the notes were brought to notice by Meeraben and the witness stated that he, Meeraben and Jatinbhai, three of them had attended Shri Vadher.
4. Mr. Soni, learned APP has referred to the evidence of the witnesses, which includes the Cashier, the Chief Manager of the Bank and the Clerk as well as the Manager of Atlantica Shipping Private Limited. The PSO who had taken the complaint was also examined and the PSI was examined as PW7. Mr. Soni, learned APP, referring to the documentary evidence placed on record, has submitted that the Manager of the Main Branch, Atlantica Shipping Private Limited was supposed to send the amount through courier. However, since the courier service was not available, accused no.1 Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:17:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1058/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined as would not go alone to collect the money and thus, the Manager from the Bombay Branch had allotted Huseni Bhatia along with him to carry the cash. The accused no.2 is the main person handling the branch at Bhavnagar who is also joined since he is the person who had given money to PW4.
5. Mr. Soni, learned APP has stated that the whole chain of handing over the money from the branch to the accused no.1 could be proved and thereafter, the accused no.2 had handed over the money to the witness - Jatin Raval and the notes were found to be fake, which were depositing in SBS Bank and therefore, the charge under Sections 489(A) and 489(B) of the IPC has been invoked in the present matter. Learned APP has submitted that the evidence of all the witnesses clearly shows that they had the knowledge of the fake counterfeit notes and the immediate persons were accused nos.1 and 2 who were directly connected with carrying on the counterfeit notes, which were placed along with the original notes deposited in the Bank.
6. Having perused the documentary evidence as well as the deposition, it becomes very glaring to note that PW4 - Jatinbhai, the person who had deposited the money in the Bank, has not been made the accused, nor Huseni Bhatia has been made an accused in the matter who had accompanied accused no.1. The notes were given by the accused no.2 as the head of the branch of Bhavnagar. Though the FSL report notes that the Muddamal seized were counterfeit notes, but the knowledge cannot be attributed to accused nos.1 and 2 for them to know those notes as counterfeit. Mere possession of counterfeit notes without knowledge of it being fake cannot draw the culpability. The present accused would have Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:17:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1058/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined no occasion to verify the same to even attribute any reason for them to believe it as forged or counterfeit notes. Even the very fact which has been noted by the learned Trial Court Judge shows that Jatinbhai - PW4 had no knowledge about those notes being fake. It was a last day to deposit the money and those notes were procured from the branch at Mumbai. Accused no.1 is the person who had brought this money with Huseni Bhatia which was allowed by the Manager of Bombay Branch. This money was handed over to accused no.2 with Huseni Bhatia. Though the prosecution has produced the evidence and has drawn the Panchnama, but merely by procuring those documents and examining it to be found as counterfeit, would not attribute the knowledge to the accused. Sections 489(B) of the IPC could be invoked only against person, when the person having knowledge or has reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit uses forged currency notes as genuine. Here in this case, the notes had come from the Bombay Main Branch to the main office to the branch at Bhavnagar. The amount was given by the authority of the branch at Mumbai and was carried by accused no.1 and Bhatiya. There is no evidence on record that those documents were anywhere tampered during the process of being carried. The police was required to further investigate the origin of these counterfeit notes, the place where those counterfeit notes were printed, the instrument through which or the machine or the computer or the printer, which were used for making those counterfeit notes. Thus, having not been placed on evidence to prove that there was a knowledge of the accused for counterfeiting the documents, the case against the accused cannot be believed to be proved by the prosecution.
Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:17:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1058/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined
7. It appears from the charge-sheet that the accused nos.3 and 4 were the persons who had sent the money from the head office to Gujarat Maritime Board for deposit of money, which notes as Rs.2,99,000/-. The charge-sheet shows that such deposit was taken by accused nos.1, 3 and 4 for sending the money to the branch office of the Gujarat Maritime Board. Though the Panchnama proves that the fake notes were collected from the office of the bank, vital evidence which could have supported the fact that the amount were the counterfeit notes so deposited by Jatinbhai, could have been proved by examination of witness - Meeraben who has been working in the branch office. The first person who had informed about suspicious notes was Meeraben who approached Shri Vadher. As per the deposition of Harishbhai Indulal, even Jatinbhai had joined them to Shri Vadher. The evidence of PW4-Jatinbhai notes that after depositing the amount, he had immediately left the branch and thus, his deposition does not corroborate the fact that Meeraben and PW1 had accompanied him to Shri Vadher. The knowledge cannot be attributed to this witness too. Since the notes which were handed over to him were only to be deposited by him. Further, no such knowledge could be attributed to accused no.2 since the money, which he had received was handed over to Jatinbhai for depositing in the Bank. The criminal intention of getting those notes to be used as genuine could not be proved. Such intention of the counterfeit currency notes also could not be proved in absence of knowledge of those believing to be forged or counterfeit.
8. Thus, as observed the facts could not be proved during the course of of the trial and hence, the finding and final conclusion of the Trial Court requires no interference on appreciating the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:17:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1058/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined evidence. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case and hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal and hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (GITA GOPI,J) Maulik Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:17:06 IST 2025