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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
4 Certified copy of vehicle insurance policy 31
6 Agreement dated 06.1.1987 38 to 40
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
