Gujarat High Court
Pashchim Gujarat Vij Company ... vs State Of Gujarat on 3 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16847/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 16847 of 2023
==========================================================
PASHCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.THROUGH MOSAMIKUMARI
SAHDEVBHAI CHAUDHARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS DIVYANGANA JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on
behalf of the respective respondents.
2. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."),
the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment
and order dated 05.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Keshod in Criminal Revision
Application no.19 of 2021, confirming order dated 24.08.2020
passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Maliya-Hatina below Exhibit-1 in
Criminal Inquiry Case No.3 of 2014 and further be pleased to
direct the learned JMFC, Maliya-Hatina to proceed further with
Criminal Inquiry Case No.3 of 2014.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16847/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
4. Having heard learned advocates on both sides and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears
that the allegations leveled against the present petitioner are
that respondent No. 2 was appointed on a contractual basis for
eleven months as a Junior Engineer in Maliya Hatina Sub-
Division, Office of the petitioner. During his tenure, he had to
perform his duty and follow instructions given by his superior
officer. It is alleged that he has fraudulently prepared some
documents and lodged them on the record by committing
criminal breach of trust with a view to giving some undue
advantage to certain persons and allowing them to release the
connection. In this regard, though the petitioner wanted to lodge
a complaint before the Maliya Hatina Police Station, the police
authority did not file a complaint. Therefore, the petitioner
approached the Court of the learned JMFC, Maliya Hatina, for
the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, and 471 of
the IPC on 02.07.2014, and the said complaint was registered as
Criminal Inquiry Case No.3 of 2014. The learned Magistrate
passed an order directing the police authority to make an inquiry
under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and submit a report by
27.08.2014. Thereafter, the police authority filed a report at
Exhibit 13. After reading the report, the learned Magistrate, by
an order dated 24.08.2020, rejected the complaint filed by the
petitioner under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., holding that
respondent No.2 was appointed on contract and had to act as
per the instructions of his superior. The allegations made
against him cannot be proved.
5. It appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16847/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
order of the Magistrate, the petitioner preferred Criminal
Revision Application No.19 of 2021 in the Court of Learned
Additional District Judge, Keshod, wherein, the learned Judge
was pleased to reject the Application by upholding the order
dated 24.08.202 passed by the learned JMFC, Maliya-Hatina at
Exhibit-1 in Criminal Inquiry Case No.3 of 2014.
6. After going through the documents on record, prima facie,
it appears that in the order dated 24.08.2020 passed by the
learned JMFC, Maliya-Hatina, at Exhibit-1 in Criminal Inquiry
Case No.3 of 2014, the learned Magistrate only assigned the
reason based on the order passed by this Court in Criminal
Misc. Application No.7630 of 2015 regarding the offence
punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
However, section 406 specifically deals with criminal breach of
trust. It is worth to note that there is nothing mentioned about
the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 469, and 471 of
the IPC, as there were specific allegations regarding the
commission of the offence of tampering with documents.
7. In view of the above, it appears that the Learned Additional
District Judge, Keshod, in order dated 05.04.2023 passed in
Criminal Revision Application No.19 of 2021, has not dealt with
the said aspect and simply upholding the judgment passed by
the learned Magistrate. In the case of Padam Singh vs State of
UP, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 621, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that the appellate Court should dispose of the appeal on
merits not merely by perusing the reasoning given by the trial
Court but should cross-check the reasoning with the evidence on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16847/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
record with a view to satisfy itself that the reasoning and finding
recorded by the learned trial Court are consistent with the
material on record.
8. Considering the aforesaid aspects, it appears that the
appeal is decided in absence of the sufficient reasoning and up
to that extent, the Courts below have committed an error and
therefore, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated
24.08.2020 passed by the learned JMFC, Maliya Hatina in
Criminal Inquiry Case No.3 of 2014 and order dated 05.04.2023
passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Keshod in Criminal Revision Application no.19 of 2021 are
hereby quashed and set aside and matter is remitted to the
learned JMFC, Maliya Hatina for fresh consideration and the
JMFC decide it afresh without being influenced by any
observation made in the present order. Rule is hereby made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
