Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sajjanraj Bhanvaralal Jain on 2 May, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje, Samir J. Dave
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 485 of 1996
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 180 of 1996
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SAJJANRAJ BHANVARALAL JAIN & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
2,3,4
DAKSHA J AMIN(1805) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
NON BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 2,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 02/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. The present appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.02.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.409 of Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined 1993. By the impugned judgment and order, the Sessions Court acquitted the respondents-accused for offence under sections 420, 467, 471, 504, 506(2) read with section 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. From the record it appears that, the main charges attributing the act constituting an offence are against respondent- accused No. 1-Sajjanraj Bhanvarlal Jain, who has expired and therefore, by order dated 28.03.2016, the appeal qua the said respondent-accused is ordered to be abated.
3. The facts of the case are as under:-
3.1 Accused No. 1-Sajjanraj Bhanvarlal Jain (deceased) is engaged in finance business under the name of S.B.Jain General Motor Corporation. On 06.01.1987, accused No.1 advanced a loan of Rs. 40,000/- to complainant Jafarali Mohammad Kasim (PW-1) against his tanker bearing registration No. GTY - 3868. Accused No.1 had misrepresented and obtained signatures of the complainant on blank printed forms, Rs.10/- non-judicial stamps, and certain papers affixed with revenue stamps deceitfully and with fraudulent intent. On 08.04.1989, the accused No.1 falsely claimed that Rs. 40,000/- was still outstanding, threatened and verbally abused the complainant Jafarali (PW-1), when the complainant visited his office to inquire about the status of his loan account.Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined The accused No.1 in collusion with accused No.4 Mohammad Vahidulla Shaikh forged false documents during the period between January 1987 and April 1989 with dishonest and fraudulent intention to effect the transfer of ownership of the said tanker bearing No. GTY - 3868 in the name of accused No. 4. On 02.05.1989 all the accused had come near Asarwa Mill Compound and were waiting for tanker No. GTY - 3868 to come out of Asarwa Mills. There were two witnesses in the tanker i.e., the driver Baldevbhai (PW-2) and the cleaner Balaji Ramaji (PW-3). The moment the tanker came out of Asarwa Mills, all the accused immediately rushed to the tanker and stopped it and accused Nos. 1, 2 and deceased accused Munafbhai snatched out the driver and the conductor and restrained them. Further, accused Nos. 3 and 4 took possession of the tanker and drove it away. Also, accused Nos. 1, 2 and deceased accused Munafbhai threatened the driver and conductor with physical injuries and thereby caused them to flee. On 02.05.1989 at around 7 pm when complainant Jafarali Mohammad Kasim went to the office of accused No. 1 regarding the taking away of the tanker by the accused persons, he was verbally abused and threatened with dire consequences by the accused No. 1.
4. Learned Advocate Daksha J. Amin for the respondents- accused was absent when the matter was called out. On previous Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined occasions also, the matter has been adjourned from time to time due to non-availability of learned Advocate for the respondent- accused. The case being that of the year 1996, is taken up with the assistance of the Learned APP.
5. Learned APP has submitted that the order of acquittal passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions case No. 409 of 1993 is against law and evidence on the record of the case.
5.1 It is submitted that the signature of the complainant was obtained by accused No. 1 on blank non judicial stamp papers and such papers were misused and the tanker was transferred in the name of accused No. 5. Further, the learned judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the tanker was rightly transferred on the name of accused No. 5 by prima facie relying upon the registration book and ordered to give possession of the tanker to accused No. 5.
5.2 It is submitted that the Learned judge ought to have appreciated that the insurance policy was on the name of the complainant on 13.04.1989 and that the complainant had given one application to the RTO office, to not transfer the tanker on the name of accused No. 5 when he came to know that certain documents are forged documents and are being misused by the Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined accused No. 5.
5.3 It is submitted that the Learned judge ought to have appreciated that the tanker was in the possession of the complainant until 02.05.1989 i.e., until it was taken away by the accused persons and that the complainant had used it by delivering oil from IOC to Asarwa Mills.
5.4 It is submitted that the Learned judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that the tanker was not robbed by the accused persons and the trial court has not taken into consideration the testimonies of the complainant, the driver and the cleaner who have specifically stated that all the accused persons looted their tanker when they came out from Asarwa mills by considering them as interested witnesses.
6. Having heard learned APP and having perused the record and proceedings, upon perusal of the same, it appears that to prove the case against the respondents-accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
Sr. Name of the witnesses PW No. Exh. No.
No.
1. Jafarali Mohammad Kasim PW-1 19
2. Baldevji Rudaji PW-2 51
3. Balaji Ramaji PW-3 54
4. Sagarmal Radhunath Sharma PW-4 56
5. Patel Dhanjibhai Bhagvanjibhai PW-5 58
6. Surilal Lalbhai Makwana PW-6 65
7. Purshottam Narayan PW-7 68
Page 5 of 15
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
6.1 The prosecution has brought on record the following
documentary evidence:-
Sr. Particular Exh. No.
No.
1 Charge 10
2 Form of transfer of ownership 29
3 Order regarding transfer of vehicle 30
4 Certified copy of vehicle insurance policy 31
5 Loan Request Letter 36
6 Agreement dated 06.1.1987 38 to 40
7 Receipt of Rs. 40,000/- 41
8 Judgment 76
7. Vide Exh. 10, charge was framed, the gist of which is as under :
" On 06.01.1987 accused No. 1 advanced a loan of Rs. 40,000/- to complainant Jafarali (PW-1) against his tanker (GTY-3868) and allegedly obtained signatures of the complainant on blank printed forms, stamped papers and thereby accused No. 1 has committed an offence under Section 420 of IPC. On 08.04.1989, when the complainant visited the office of accused No. 1 to inquire about the status of his loan account, he threatened and verbally abused the complainant and accused No. 1 has thereby committed an offence under S. 504 and S. 506(1) of IPC. It is further alleged that between January 1987 and April 1989, accused Nos. 1 and 4 colluded to forge documents to transfer ownership of the tanker in the name of accused No. 4 and thereby accused Nos. 1 and 4 have committed an offence under S. 467 and S. 471 read with Section 114 of IPC. On 02.05.1989 all the accused stopped the tanker outside Asarwa Mills and accused Nos. 1, 2 and Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined deceased accused Munafbhai snatched out the driver Baldevbhai (PW-2) and the cleaner Balaji Ramaji (PW-3) and restrained them. Further, accused Nos. 3 and 4 took possession of the tanker and drove it away. Thereby, all the accused have committed offences under Section 392 and Section 395 of the IPC. The accused Nos. 1, 2 and deceased accused Munafbhai threatened the driver and conductor with physical injuries and thereby caused them to flee and have thereby committed an offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC. Later that evening at around 7 pm, the accused No. 1 verbally abused and threatened the complainant with dire consequences when the complainant went to his office regarding the taking away of the tanker by the accused persons and has thereby committed an offence under S. 504 and S. 506(1) of IPC."
8. It is the case of the prosecution that the signature of the complainant was obtained on certain R.T.O. forms, insurance papers, blank papers and non judicial stamp papers of Rs.10/- by misrepresentation on the pretext that such documents would be returned back after the repayment of the loan. Further, such papers were knowingly produced by accused No.1 and accused No.4 before the authority in order to effect the transfer of the tanker in the name of accused No.4.
9. In this regard, it appears that the complainant (PW-1) is an educated person and had earlier availed a loan from accused Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined No. 1. Hence, he would be familiar with the formalities involved in such transactions including signing of documents. Therefore, it appears that the complainant was well aware of the nature of documents and the consequences of signing on such blank papers or forms. Additionally, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant had raised any objection at the time of affixing his signature. Moreover, there is a lack of independent evidence to prove the same and hence, this casts a doubt on the version of the complainant.
10. In order to establish a charge of Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, the essential ingredients are as under:-
Ingredients of Section 420 IPC:
(Cheating is defined under Section 415 IPC and is punishable under Section 420 IPC).
i) Deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission;
ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property or
iii) the consent that any persons shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.
Ingredients of Section 467 IPC :
i) There must be a document that has been forged.
ii) The person committing forgery must have intention to cause damage or harm to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property.
iii) The said document must be a valuable security or will or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquaintance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquaintance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security.
Ingredients of Section 471 IPC :
i) There must be a document that has been forged as under Section 463 IPC.
ii) The person document must have knowledge or reason to believe that the document is forged.
iii) The individual must fraudulently or dishonestly use the forged document as if it were a genuine document, with the intention to deceive or cause harm to another person, or to support any claim or title.
11. Now keeping the aforesaid ingredients in mind, in the present case, a mere allegation that accused No. 1 obtained the signature of the complainant on blank printed forms, non-judicial stamp papers, and papers affixed with revenue stamps which were used to effect the transfer of the tanker in the name of accused No. 4 does not by itself fulfill the ingredients required to constitute offences under Sections 420, 467, and 471 of the IPC unless they are satisfied by producing cogent evidences. The accused No. 1 advanced a loan of Rs. 40,000/- against the tanker bearing registration No. GTY - 3868 and got papers signed for the same, which would be returned back upon repayment of the loan. This appears to be a financial transaction and does not by itself show the existence of dishonest intention which is an essential ingredient under Section 420 IPC. The prosecution has not sufficiently proved by producing evidence that the accused forged a document in order Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined to attract S. 467 IPC. Moreover, there is no expert opinion or FSL report to establish that the said documents were forged by the accused. Hence, the essential ingredients of Section 467 IPC are not proved. Additionally, to attract the provisions of Section 471 IPC, it must be shown that the accused fraudulently or dishonestly used a forged document as genuine, with knowledge or reason to believe it was forged. However, there is no evidence on record to prove that the documents were submitted to R.T.O with the said intent to effect the transfer of the vehicle or that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the documents were forged. Hence, the essential ingredients of Section 471 IPC are not proved.
12. Additionally, PW No. 6-Surilal Lalbhai Makwana, Exh. 65 is the deposition of a senior clerk at the R.T.O. who has deposed that he is familiar with the procedure and rules involved in transfer of vehicles and has described the same at length. Further, he has deposed that all the documents for effecting the transfer had been verified and after ruling out the objections raised by the complainant, the tanker was transferred in adherence to the rules in the name of accused No.4. This deposition clearly establishes that there was procedural compliance and due diligence on part of the R.T.O. and hence, the transfer in favour of accused No. 4 is valid in the light of the said circumstances.
13. PW No.7-Purshottam Narayan, Exh. 68 is the Assistant Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined Administrative Officer at the National Insurance Company. He has deposed that the said tanker was initially insured in the name of the complainant for the period from 13.04.1989 to 05.02.1990. Thereafter, by a proposal, it was transferred in the name of accused No. 4- Mohammad Vahidulla Shaikh. Therefore, it clearly comes out from the deposition of this witness that the vehicle in question stood transferred in the name of accused No.4 legally.
14. Also, before the incident that took place on 02.05.1989 pursuant to which the complaint was filed, a suit was instituted by accused No. 4 against the complainant so that he may not take possession of the tanker by illegal means. The filing of the suit prior to the alleged incident and resorting to judicial means strengthens the case of the defence.
15. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that on 02.05.1989, the tanker was taken away by the accused persons after stopping the tanker outside Asarwa mills and snatching out the driver Baldevji (PW-2) and the cleaner Balaji Ramaji (PW-3). Further, the complainant was not an eye witness to the said incident and came to know about the incident subsequently when it was narrated to him by the driver and the cleaner.
16. The testimony of PW No. 7-Baldevji Rudaji, Exh. 51, the driver of the tanker shows a material contradiction in the case of Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined the prosecution. He has deposed in his testimony that the said incident took place at 12 pm in the noon and that the cleaner of the tanker and he left soon after the said incident took place. However, it is the case of the prosecution that the said incident took place at 5:30 pm. This inconsistency regarding the time of the incident is not a minor discrepancy but goes to the root of the case and thereby raises a doubt on the case of the prosecution.
17. Further, there appears to be another material contradiction wherein it is the case of the prosecution that PW No. 7-Baldevji Rudaji had signed an affidavit. However, the said witness has denied that he has sworn or that his signature was obtained on any affidavit. On the contrary, this witness has deposed that he does not know reading or writing. This further raises doubt on the case of the prosecution.
18. Also, it has to be noted that the alleged incident took place outside Asarwa Mills which is situated in a thickly populated locality. However, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses in this regard to corroborate the occurrence of the said incident. The only two witnesses examined in this regard are the driver and cleaner of the tanker, both of whom are closely associated with the complainant and can be considered as interested witnesses. Hence, the non-examination of independent witnesses in such a case where independent witnesses would be Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined usually available raises doubts on the credibility of the case owing to lack of independent corroboration.
19. Further, it is to be noted that at the time of lodging of the said complaint, a search warrant was obtained by the complainant to get the possession of the tanker and hence, the said tanker was seized from accused No. 4. Thereafter, an application was filed by accused No. 4 to have interim custody of the tanker which was granted by the lower Court pending the trial with the view that accused No. 4 prima facie has a right to have the custody thereof. Against the said order, a revision was preferred before this Court and it was decided in favour of accused No.4. Thereafter, the complainant had moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of Special Leave Petition which came to be rejected. Hence, the interim possession of the tanker was maintained in favour of accused No. 5. Therefore, the Sessions Court has rightly passed the order upholding the possession of the tanker with accused No. 4 after perusing the findings of the said judicial proceedings.
20. The Court may also draw strength from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2022) 3 SCC 471, wherein the Apex Court has examined the case law with regard to the power of the High Court to overturn the decision of the Sessions Court where an Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined another view is possible. Examining the case including that of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Apex Court has culled out the general principles regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal against the order of acquittal. The Apex Court has held that the appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, teh appellate court has to keep in mind that in case of an acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, and thereafter, upon securing of acquittal, the presumption is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened, and therefore, whenever there are two reasonable possible on the basis of evidence on record, ordinarily, the Apex Court would not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
21. The Court has also perused the judgment and order of the Sessions Court and finds that just and cogent reasonings are assigned by the Sessions Court while acquitting the respondents- accused.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.02.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/485/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.409 of 1993. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Bail and bonds of the accused, if any, stand discharged. R & P be sent back to the concerned trial Court.
23. In view of the dismissal of appeal, Criminal Revision Application does not survive. Disposed of accordingly.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) (SAMIR J. DAVE,J) SHITOLE Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:33:02 IST 2025