Gujarat High Court
Irfan @ Noormohammed Suleman Jamrot vs State Of Gujarat on 13 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 213 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
IRFAN @ NOORMOHAMMED SULEMAN JAMROT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PARTH S TOLIA(5617) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 13/02/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash
and set aside order dated 19.4.2012 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2012
confirming the judgment and order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the
learned JMFC, Una in Criminal Case No.889 of 2008.
1.1 According to the prosecution case, the present incident of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
housebreaking and theft was committed on 1.5.2008 at 11/30
pm in Una town. According to the prosecution case, co-accused
Bhavesh and Mohanbhai break open the gate of rear side of the
house of Ajitkumar Ramniklal, committed criminal trespass and
committed theft of some utensils worth Rs. 9000/- from the
house. Further, it is the prosecution case that above said co-
accused persons sold the above said muddamal to present
applicant which was kept at the house of co-accused Kanji @
Kanabhai. Therefore, it is the prosecution case that the present
applicant dishonestly received and retained above said stolen
property with him knowing fully well that it was a stolen
property and thereby present applicant has committed an
offence punishable u / s 411, 201 r / w . 114 of IPC. Charge
sheet was submitted. At the conclusion of trial, the Ld.JMFC,
Una was pleased to convict all the four accused persons and
present applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable
u/s. 411, 201 and 114 of IPC.
1.2 The Learned Magistrate was pleased to sentence the
applicant to suffer SI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-
in default, he is directed to undergo SI for 7 days for the offence
punishable u / s . 411, 201 and 114 of IPC.
1.3 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the
petitioner preferred to file Criminal Appeal No.16/2012 before
the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Una. That the Ld. Judge by
impugned judgment and order dated 19.4.2012 was pleased to
dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment and order of Ld.
Magistrate. Hence, present Criminal Revision Application.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Parth Tolia for the petitioner
and learned APP for the respondent State.
3. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and considering para 5, 22 and 25 of the
impugned order, what appears that the present petitioner has
purchased utensils, which was said to have been stolen from the
premises. The utensils were found vide discovery panchnama at
Exh.39 taken at the instance of the co-accused. The co-accused
took the police to the shop / Bhangar Dela of the present
petitioner, where the utensils are found. So, discovery of the
utensils comes through the discovery panchnama recorded u/s
27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial Court while
convicting the present petitioner did not discuss the evidentiary
value of discovery panchnama at Exh.39. Even otherwise, this
discovery panchnama could be considered as a weak piece of
evidence and may place as a link in the entire chain of the
incident. What could be discovered is utensils u/s 27 of the
Evidence Act. The prosecution is required to prove the
ingredients of section 411 of the IPC to prove the case against
the petitioner accused.
4. In order to prove the case against present petitioner, the
prosecution is required to prove that the accused has received
the stolen property dishonestly. Two aspects are required to be
proved; firstly the prosecution is required to prove that property,
which is discovered from the premises of the petitioner is a
stolen one and secondly, it was dishonestly received. On going
through the impugned judgments and orders, more particularly
of learned JMFC, nowhere it is discussed by the learned JMFC
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
that how ingredients of section 411 of the IPC is satisfied, which
evidence comes on record to show that the utensils recovered
from the premises of the petitioner were the same which were
stolen and it was dishonestly received. Unfortunately, this
cursory and perfunctory finding of the learned JMFC has been
given seal by the learned Sessions Court. Keeping the utensils
are not per se offence. As stated earlier, prosecution is obliged to
prove that accused has kept or received stolen utensils with
dishonest motive/intention
5. What further appears that the learned Session Judge
unnecessarily adverted to section 14 and 114 of the Indian
Evidence Act to inculpate the accused. I am afraid to hold the
fathom in the impugned judgments and orders. There is no
evidence on record, which sufficiently and beyond reasonable
doubt proves that the petitioner accused has committed offence
u/s 411 of the IPC, for which, he has been convicted and
therefore, present petition requires consideration.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the revision succeeds. The order
dated 19.4.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Una in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2012 confirming the judgment
and order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the learned JMFC, Una in
Criminal Case No.889 of 2008 are hereby quashed and set aside.
The petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
Bail bond stands cancelled. The amount of fine if paid shall be
refunded to petitioner on proper verification and identification.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
