Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bharatbhai Maganbhai Thakkar on 10 September, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 900 of 2010
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 617 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHARATBHAI MAGANBHAI THAKKAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR I SALVI(13796) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. Criminal Appeal No.617 of 2010 is preferred by
the appellant - original accused Bharatbhai Maganbhai
Thakkar under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Criminal Procedure 1973 being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 7.4.2010 passed in Special Case No.5 of 2001 by the
learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Vadodara
convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under
sections 420 read with 120-B or in the alternative 114 of
IPC and ordered to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment
and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo 3
months rigorous imprisonment and also convicted the
appellant for the offence under sections 465, 467, 471 read
with 120-B or in the alternative 114 of IPC and ordered to
undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous
imprisonment and also convicted the appellant for the
offence under section 42(1) of the State Financial
Corporation Act 1951 and ordered to undergo one year
rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in
default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.
Whereas, Criminal Appeal No.900 of 2010 is preferred by
the State for enhancement of sentence.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
2. It is required to be noted that the present
appellant is original accused No.1, whereas original accused
No.2 - Dhirendra Yogendrarai Vora who is respondent No.2
in Criminal Appeal No.900 of 2010 had also preferred the
appeal against his conviction bearing Criminal Appeal
No.581 of 2010. However, pending the appeal, original
accused No.2 has passed away on 9.12.2011 and vide order
dated 18.12.2012, the said appeal stood abated.
3. Criminal Appeal No.900 of 2010 is filed by the
State for enhancement survives only against the present
appellant - Bharatbhai Maganbhai Thakkar.
4. The facts shorn of unnecessary details are as
follows :
4.1 That Bharatbhai Maganbhai Thakkar in
connivance with four other persons entered into partnership
firm in the name and style of Vijaya Packers who indulged
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
into manufacturing of plastic containers. The said firm
applied to avail loan of Rs.21 lacs with the Gujarat State
Financial Corporation (for short "GSFC"). Subsequently, the
GSFC sanctioned and disbursed a sum of Rs.16,66,000/-. It
is the case of the prosecution that loan amount came to be
sanctioned and disbursed to the firm on the basis of
transport receipts and purchase receipts and the certificate
issued by the Chartered Accountant. However, during the
scrutiny of the so called premises of Vijaya Packers, the
GSFC came to know that the bills and other documents so
submitted were forged and that no such partnership was
existing at the time of preferring an application for
sanctioning of the loan as stated hereinabove. It is in this
pretext that the complaint came to be filed by the Manager
of the GSFC before the Court for making and presenting
false and forged documents in order to avail loan from the
GSFC despite of having knowledge that no such plants and
machinery were purchased.
4.2 That chargesheet came to be submitted and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
same came to be registered as Special Case No.5 of 2005.
4.3 Learned Sessions Judge vide Exh.18 framed the
charge and recorded the plea of original accused Nos.1 and
2 vide Exhs.19 and 20 respectively to which they denied the
charges and prayed for trial.
4.4 To bring home the charges against the appellant
accused, the prosecution relied upon the following oral as
well as documentary evidences.
ORAL EVIDENCES :
Sr.No. Name Exh.
witness)
4 Ramanbhai Chandubhai Talpada (witness - 151
Jr.Inspector, GSFC)
5 Govindlal Maneklal Bhatt (witness - Manager, 152
GSFC)
8 Ranchhodbhai Manilal Patel (Investigating Officer) 183
9 Dhananjay Avinash Chaudhary (Investigating 184
Officer)
10 Kitikumar Jethlal Trivedi (witness - Jr.Inspector, 196
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
GSFC)
11 Dineshchandra Hirachand Jain (witness Chartered 197
Accountant)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES :
Sr.No. Name Exh.
9 Valuation certificate issued by Mahesh Parikh & Co. 91
10 Inspection verification report dated 25.6.1994 and 92
certificate dated 25.6.1994 of CA
13 Letter dated 6.6.1994 of Punjab National Bank, 95
Marve Road
16 Valuation certificate dated 26.5.1994 given by 98
Mahesh Parikh & Co for plot No.546
17 Letter dated 23.5.1994 of Webflax machinery 99
suppliers and delivery plan.
19 Letter of Punjab National Bank of current account 101
21 Letter dated 24.1.1994 sanctioning the loan 103
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
24 Reply dated 7.6.1996 of Bharatbhai Maganbhai 106
Thakkar
25 Panchnama of the visit dated 31.5.1996 and reply 107
of Panch No.1.
26 Appointment order of complainant Hathila 109
28 Office / work order of complainant Hathila 111
29 Resolution of the board authorizing the complainant 112
30 Letter of Corporation for filing the complaint 113
31 Sanction letter of the Government of Gujarat (Home 114
Department)
42 Specimen signature of Bharat Magan Thakkar 125
43 Money receipts for loan amount 126 to
44 Order of Corporation for internal inquiry 136
45 Letter of Punjab National Bank for Inquiry Officer 137
48 Circular of Corporation for loan advance 140
50 Sale letter of Corporation for primary property 142
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
55 Order for taking over the inquiry written by DySP 186
4.5 The accused have examined two witnesses
claiming their innocence. After recording of the evidence,
further statement of the accused under the provisions of
section 313 of CrPC came to be recorded and after hearing
learned advocates for both the sides and considering the
written arguments, passed the impugned judgment and
order under challenge which is assailed before this Court
both by original accused No.1 against conviction and by the
State for enhancement of sentence.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Pratik Barot appearing for
the appellant - original accused No.1 would contend that :
(a) That the complaint came to be lodged by one
Somsinh Vikabhai Hathila against nine persons which
includes all the partners of the partnership firm Vijaya
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Packers of which the present appellant was also partner.
However, when the chargesheet came to be filed, the same
was against only two persons and there is no explanation
afforded by the prosecution as to why the other persons who
are initially named as accused were not chargesheeted and
tried.
(b) That none of the documents alleged to have been
forged were sent by the prosecution to the FSL for the
purpose of examination nor any handwriting expert was
examined to prove that signatures of the partners on the
alleged partnership deed and other documents including
loan agreement are forged. Thus, the prosecution has failed
to prove forgery at its foundation.
(c) That entire conviction is based on the statement
of the appellant accused recorded by the officer of the GSFC
which was prepared for the purpose of internal inquiry.
However, the Manager Mr.G.M.Bhatt who was examined as
PW 5 who had prepared the said inquiry report has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
accepted in his deposition that the statement of the
appellant accused is made up.
(d) That on perusal of the report submitted by the
Regional Manager, it clearly reveals that as per his
verification, the partners of Vijaya Packers were engaged in
trading business of packing material since last 5 - 6 years.
(e) That even at the time of examining the
documents while sanctioning the loan by the GSFC to the
appellant firm, details of plants and machinery were taken
by the GSFC which included the companies from which
machines were purchased by the appellant and were
installed at Plot No.546. However, the prosecution has not
called or summoned any witness from whom such machines
were purchased to prove that bills of purchases were fake
and forged alleged to have been got up by the appellant.
(f) Defence has examined two witnesses i.e.
Kirtikumar J.Trivedi who served as the Junior Inspector at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
GSFC as DW 1 who has deposed to the effect that at the
time of inspection of the site of the appellant firm, there
were different machineries lying at plot No.546 at Waghodia
GIDC and the same was incorporated in the inspection
report prepared by him. DW 2 - Dinesh C.Jain was also
examined by the defence who is Chartered Accountant and
had prepared the certificate. This witness on oath states
that CA certificate was issued by him after verification of all
the documents.
(g) That learned trial Judge ordered initiation of the
proceedings under section 319 of the CrPC against both the
defence witnesses who alleged to have played active role in
commission of the offences. However, the said order came to
be challenged by these witnesses before this Court by way of
Special Criminal Application No.693 of 2010 and vide order
dated 18.12.2015, the said order of the learned trial Judge
came to be quashed and set aside.
(h) That the GSFC has taken over possession of plant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
and machinery at plot No.546 at Waghodia GIDC under the
provisions of section 29 of the State Financial Act on
30.10.1995 and an advertisement for sell of the assets was
also issued on 20.12.1996. On perusal of the said
advertisement, even that auction included the said
machineries.
(i) That before taking possession, PW No.5 -
Mr.G.M.Bhatt had also visited factory premises on
31.5.1996 and inquiry report is dated 12.6.1996 which also
reflects all plants and machineries being installed at the
premises. However, the GSFC has not produced the
panchnama dated 30.10.1995 when the possession of land,
building and machineries was taken over by them and has
filed the complaint on 27.12.1996 after auctioning of the
plants and machineries which is indicative of the fact that
machineries were installed at the said plot which came to be
auctioned and sold by the GSFC.
(j) Lastly, it is submitted that even in further
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
statement under section 313 of CrPC in the form of
explanation afforded by the appellant herein wherein it is
stated that he has also paid remaining amount of Rs.3 lacs
and receipt of the same was also produced and despite
being the appellant not charged for the offence of cheating
under section 420 of IPC, however, at the time of passing
the order of conviction, learned trial Judge has convicted
the appellant under section 420 of IPC without there being
any express charge framed against the appellant. Therefore,
it is argued that in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, the present appeal be allowed.
(k) In support of his submissions, Mr.Pratik Barot
has relied upon the following judgments.
(i) (2023) 2 SCC 583 (Kalicharan Vs State of
UP)
(ii) (2011) 8 SCC 300 (Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi Vs
State of UP)
(iii) (2023) 3 SCC 423 (Deepak Gaba and others
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Vs State of UP)
(iv) AIR 2023 SC 3053 (Sukhbir Singh Badal Vs
Balwant Singh Khera)
(v) (2009) 8 SCC 751 (Mohammed Ibrahim Vs
State of Bihar)
(vi) (2018) 7 SCC 581 (Sheila Sebastian Vs
R.Jawaraj)
6. Learned APP Mr. L.B.Dabhi would submit that :
(a) That the prosecution having proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt, sentence awarded by the learned
trial Judge is disproportionate against the offence
committed by the original accused No.1.
(b) That learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate
that all the accused persons in connivance with one another
have forged the documents and after treating the same as
genuine and thereby obtained the loan of Rs.16,66,000/-
and in such circumstances, sentence awarded by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
learned trial Judge is lenient and deserves to be enhanced.
(c) That learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate
the prosecution has examined nine witnesses and has
produced and relied upon 56 documentary evidences and
on perusal of the evidence of the complainant - Somsinh
Hathila read with other documents, it is crystal clear that
all the persons with abetment to one another have produced
false documents with an intention to commit the offence of
cheating with the GSFC and thus, looking to the oral as well
as documentary evidences, when the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, learned trial
Judge ought to have imposed maximum punishment.
(d) That learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate
that when the case of cheating against the GSFC is
increasing day by day, learned trial Judge ought to have
imposed maximum punishment to set an example in the
society and having failed to do so, the present appeal
requires enhancement at the hands of this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
(e) Thus, it is argued to allow the present appeal and
reject the appeal filed by the original accused No.1 being
Criminal Appeal No.617 of 2010.
7. Heard learned advocates for the respective
parties. We have gone through the Record and Proceedings
of the case as well as impugned judgment.
8. We have also perused the oral as well as
documentary evidences led by the prosecution before the
learned trial Court.
9. The appellant accused is convicted for the
offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
read with section 120-B or in the alternative under section
114 of IPC and also under section 42(1) of the State
Financial Act. In order to attract section 420 of IPC i.e.
cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property,
ingredients of section 415 of IPC have to be satisfied. A
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
person should be induced either fraudulently or dishonestly
induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to
any person or to consent that any person shall retain any
property. The second class act set forth in section 415 is
intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to
do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived. Thus, condition precedent for invoking section
415 of IPC is fraudulently dishonesty or intentionally
inducement and in absence of this element, it will not
attract the offence of cheating.
10. Section 465 of IPC provides for punishment for
forgery. Section 463 defines forgery as follows.
"Section 463 : Forgery .- Whoever makes any false
document or false electronic record or part of a
document or electronic record with intent to
cause damage or injury, to the public or to any
person, or to support any claim or title, or to
cause any person to part with property, or to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
enter into any express or implied contract, or with
intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be
committed, commits forgery."
Section 467 reads as follows :
"Section 467 : Forgery of valuable security, will,
etc.- Whoever forges a document which purports
to be a valuable security or a 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 dividends thereon, or to receive or
deliver any money, movable property, or valuable
security, or any document purporting to be an
acquittance or receipt acknowledging the
payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt
for the delivery of any movable property or
valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 468 reads as follows :
"Section 468 - Forgery for purpose of cheating.-
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the
document or electronic record forged shall be
used for the purpose of cheating, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine."
Section 471 reads as follows :
"Section 471 - Using as genuine a forged
[document or electronic record. Whoever
fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any
document which he knows or has reason to
believe to be a forged document, shall be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
punished in the same manner as if he had forged
such document."
11. Section 471 of IPC is applicable where a person
fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document
or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe
to be a forged document. Therefore, condition precedent for
offence under section 471 of IPC is forgery by making false
document and thus, the prosecution has to prove that the
document was forged in terms of and false under section
464 of IPC. Section 470 of IPC lays down that a document is
forged if there is (i) fradulent or dishonest use of a
document as genuine, and (ii) knowledge or reasonable
belief on the part of a person using the document that it is a
forged one. Thus, section 470 defines a forged document as
a false document made by forgery. As per section 464 of
IPC, a person is said to have made a false document; (i) if he
has made or executed a document claiming to be someone
else or authorized by someone else; (ii) if he has altered or
tampered a document; or (iii) if he has obtained a document
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
by practising deception, or from a person not in control of
his senses. Thus, on reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is
clear that unless the document is false and forged in terms
of sections 464 and 470 of IPC respectively, the requirement
of section 471 of IPC would not be met. Therefore, as per
section 463 of IPC whoever makes any false document with
in intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any
person or to support any claim or title or to cause any
person to part with property or to enter into any express or
implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that
fraud may be committed, a person is said to have committed
offence of forgery. A making false document defines under
section 464 of IPC and therefore, for the offence of forgery,
there must be making of false document with an intent to
cause damage or injury to the public or to any person.
Thus, condition precedent for the offence under sections
467 and 470 of IPC is forgery and in turn condition
precedent is making false document. Therefore, question
before this Court is whether the accused herein can be said
to have made and executed false document in collusion with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
other accused and thus if ingredients of cheating under
section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was
offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. Thus, the
prosecution has to first prove that forgery is committed as
provided under section 463 coupled with ingredients of
section 464 of IPC are also to be satisfied. Therefore, unless
and until ingredients of section 463 of IPC are satisfied, a
person cannot be convicted under section 465 of IPC solely
relying on the ingredients of section 464 of IPC as offence of
forgery would remain incomplete.
12. The following details in the tabular form would be
convenient for the sake of understanding the chronology of
events.
Sr.No. Date Particulars
1 24.5.1992 Loan application for Rs.21 lacs was preferred before the
Gujarat State Financial Corporation by (i) Bharatbhai
Maganbhai Thakkar, (ii) Manohar, Manoharbhai
D.Fansekar, (iii) Smt.Vijayaben D.Fansekar, (iv) Srikant
Lodha and (v) Smt.Jyotsna M.Lodha.
2 24.1.1994 Loan to the tune of Rs.17,30,000/- came to be
sanctioned.
3 11.5.1994 Bharatbhai Maganbhai Thakkar submitted partnership
deed, power of attorney, loan agreement, hypothecation
deed, declara8.6.2006tion, joint and personal
guarantees, affidavit etc.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
4 18.4.1994 Certificate approving machine purchase and plot having
28.5.1994 been purchased issued by Dinesh Jain, Chartered
25.6.1994 Accountant and the same also being installed at the site.
26.7.1994
5 March GSFC came to know about fraud being committed with
1996 them.
6 24.5.1994 Mr.G.M.Bhatt, Manager and Mr.V.M.Vaishnav, Deputy
General Manager came to be appointed vide office order
dated 24.5.1994 to conduct internal inquiry.
7 12.6.1994 The aforesaid officers submitted inquiry report inter alia
stating that there exist no company in the name and
style of Webflex and Delta Engineering at Mumbai who
have supplied machines to M/s Vijya Packers nor any
machines have been purchased from the aforesaid
companies. CA certificate by Mr.Dinesh Jain and
valuation certificate by valuer Mr.Parikh & Company
were false as against the valuation of the properties /
plant and machineries.
8 30.10.199 Took possession of the property which were thereafter
5 auctioned which fetched Rs.3,71,000/-.
9 31.5.1996 The Inquiry Officer visited the site and as per the said
panchnama, machineries as shown while taking the loan
were not found at the site. However, some different
machineries of the sub-standard quality and lower price
were found in condemned condition. The certificate
dated 6.6.1993 of the Punbaj National Bank obtaining
working capital was false and forged and the invoice and
delivery chalan dated 23.5.1994 alleged to have been
issued by Webflex were also found forged and false.
10 20.12.199 Paper advertisement for auction by GSFC.
11 27.12.199 Written complaint given to the CID Crime, Ahmedabad
6 by Mr.Somsinh.
12 22.01.199 Panchnama by Investigating Agency at site.
13. On analysis of the evidence of PW 1 - Somsinh
Vikabhai Hathila who has been examined vide Exh.81 i.e.
complainant, the factum of lodging the complaint while
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
working with Head Office at Ahmedabad in Legal and
Recovery Department and was appointed and authorized
vide order dated 4.10.1996 in such cases where false and
forged documents were presented and loans were obtained
from the GSFC is surfacing on record. On going through the
examination-in-chief of this witness, he has lodged the
complaint based on the internal inquiry report submitted by
the Manager Mr.G.M.Bhatt and Deputy General Manager
Mr.V.M.Vaishnav. In the cross examination, this witness
has admitted that he has not inquired into the facts of the
present case. However, based on the documents received by
him in the file, he has lodged the complaint. He has denied
suggestion that he has not verified the documents appended
with the complaint. He has also admitted that he has lodged
the complaint against nine persons. He has also admitted
that after investigation, the police has not arrested seven
persons out of nine accused persons. Thus, from the
deposition of this witness, the factum of lodging the
complaint based on internal inquiry report is proved.
However, the contents of the documents as required by law
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
which were alleged to have been appended along with the
complaint though have been exhibited, yet they are required
to be proved in accordance with law by leading direct
evidence.
14. On perusal of the deposition of PW 2 - Amit
Ajitbhai Chavda who has deposed vide Exh.148 who is the
panch of panchnama carried out on 22.1.1997 i.e. after one
year and three months of taking possession by GSFC and is
placed on record vide Exh.149. On going through the entire
deposition of this witness including the cross examination,
the contents of the panchnama after lodging of the
complaint and during the investigation is proved and as per
the said panchnama, there was one old moulding machine
lying with cover. However, inside there was no machinery.
There was one old stitching machine lying in scrapped
condition. Some old plastic scrap were also lying. Some
galvanized sheets were also lying and some scraps with
factory in closed condition was found.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
15. PW 3 - Zulfikar Ahmed Abrar Ahmed Shaikh has
been examined who has deposed at Exh.150 who is panch
of panchnama at Exh.107 which was prepared on
31.5.1996 by the internal inquiry committee consisting of
Mr.G.M.Bhatt, Manager and Mr.V.M.Vaishnav, Deputy
General Manager at the site. In the examination-in-chief,
the witness has stated that just next to plot No.546 in
Vaghodia GIDC where he used to run his factory, before 8 or
9 years, two officers came with regard to inquiry of loan and
had opened shed No.546 where there was no
machinery8.6.2006 at all. However, this witness has turned
hostile and after cross examining by learned Public
Prosecutor, the witness has admitted as to what he has
stated in the statement before the internal inquiry
committee as well as police. However, during his cross
examination by the defence advocate, the witness has
admitted that till date, the police has not met him and it is
also true that he has not given any statement to the police.
He has also admitted that it is true that officers of the GSFC
had not informed regarding the factory next to his factory
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
because he was not knowing anything. Thus, from the
deposition of this witness at the most what had been stated
by this witness before the inquiry committee has come on
record but cannot be termed as reliable witness as he is
blowing hot and cold.
16. The prosecution has examined Ramanbhai
Chandubhai Talpada as PW 4 at Exh.151 who is also
signatory to the panchnama at Exh.107 carried out at plot
No.546 at GIDC Vaghodia on 31.5.1996 by the internal
inquiry committee. The police has also recorded his
statement. However, in the cross examination, the witness
has stated that what the police has written in the statement
is not known to him and it is true that the police has not
made him read the statement made by him.
17. Vide Exh.152, PW 5 - Govindlal Maneklal Bhatt
has been examined who is one of the members of the
internal inquiry committee and had submitted the inquiry
report. On going through the deposition, more particularly,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
examination-in-chief of this witness, he has stated that in
1996, he was working as Manager in the GSFC, Ahmedabad
and the management had appointed him and Mr.Vaishnav
by written order to inquiry about irregularities with regard
to the loan sanctioned to M/s Vijaya Packers, Vadodara.
After which, he along with Mr.Vaishnav and the then
Regional Manager Mr.K.S.Rana and other officers had
opened factory premises and had checked, but it was found
that machineries for which the loan was sanctioned were
not found in accordance with what was sanctioned and on
inquiring in the neighbouring factory, i.e. Technicalo Rubber
and Yogi Industries, he came to know that M/s Vijaya
Packers has not functioned for a single day and during
night hours, machineries were taken out and 8.6.2006 had
also taken statement to that effect. Thereafter, on 7.6.1996
and 8.6.2006, they went to Mumbai and contacted the
partners of M/s Vijya Packers and had also went to the
residence where one person i.e. Fansekar and another
Londe, both husband and wife met them and stated that
since they are not partners of M/s Vijaya Packers, they are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
not bound to give any statement. Thereafter, they contacted
the main accused Bharatbhai Maganbhai Thakar and he
came personally at the place and inquired with him in detail
to which, he has admitted that other partners in the said
firm have resined from the beginning and on inquiry with
Mr.Bharatbhai Thakkar with regard to machineries, he has
admitted that bills submitted by him were forged and were
made by one Mr.Gelango who has now shifted to Dubai and
thereafter Mr.Bharatbhai Thakkar had also informed that
since the prices of machineries were very high, they got
manufacturer from Satyam Engineering at Mumbai at lower
price and that he also informed that letter submitted of
working capital being sanctioned by the Punjab National
Bank and the bank statements are not given by the Punjab
National Bank but are forged. On asking him the question
as to why machineries were not installed in the factory, he
informed that such machineries were not installed by laying
foundation but were installed by nut-bolt and on asking
why such illegality was committed by him, the accused
informed that there was some disputes going on between
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
the couple and case of divorce was also going on; he
required money and as a last resort, he sold out
machineries and also informed the details of the said sale of
machineries i.e. moulding machine was sold to Umiya
Plastic at Puna at Rs.3,31,000/-, Roto Graver machine to
Tin Graver Company, Nasik for Rs.5,31,000/- and ceiling
machine to DDS Enterprise, Mulund for Rs.40,000/- and
machineries which were installed at the factory were
purchased at very low price from Mumbai, Dhoraji and
Kandivali from scrap market. He also admitted that
signatures in the power of attorney of the partners are also
forged and all the partners had resigned through resolution
deed. When the statement of Bharatbhai Thakkar was
recorded, total loan amount of Rs.16,66,000/- was
outstanding and had defaulted in paying the said loan
amount and had also promised to pay to the GSFC within
one year. He was also asked whether during the inquiry, he
had faced any difficulty from the officer of the Corporation
to which, he denied and stated that he has no complain
against any one. This witness has also stated that on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
inquiry, it was found that Gujarat Transport Company,
Masjid Bander, Mumbai is not in existence through which
machines were alleged to have been transported and
working capital alleged to have been taken from Punjab
National Bank. It is also stated by him in his deposition that
vide letter dated 9.9.1996, the questions with regard to M/s
Vijaya Packers were asked to Punjab National Bank, Malad
West Branch, Mumbai and the Senior Manager of the bank
had orally informed that they have not given any working
capital loan to M/s Vijaya Packers and the letter of Punjab
National Bank and the statements are not bearing the
signatures of their employees and report dated 12.6.1996
which is at Exh.85 is signed by him and Mr.Vaishnav. He
also relied on Exh.86 with regard to the bill issued by the
Webflex of machineries and Gujarat Roadways Transport
receipt. He also relied on the statement recorded by him
during the inquiry of the Chartered Accountant Mr.Dinesh
Jain at Exh.105 and statement of Bharatbhai Thakkar i.e.
present accused at Exh.106 (tentative exhibit). He also
relied on Exh.107 panchnama carried out on 31.5.1996,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
statement of Zulfikar Shaikh recorded while preparing
panchnama was relied on by him as appended with
Exh.107.
17.1 In the cross examination, only relevant part is to
the effect that the police has not taken his statement. He
has also admitted that after inspection of the site, the loan
was approved and that he has not seen the complaint and
only prepared preliminary inquiry report. That he has not
inquired as to which officer had visited the site.
18. The prosecution has examined Shrikant
Marutirao Londhe vide Exh.179 as PW 6. He has not
supported the case of the prosecution despite being cross
examined by learned Public Prosecutor. However, on
showing him Exh.115 i.e. partnership deed, he has denied
his signature. In the cross examination by the defence
advocate, this witness has stated that it is not so happened
that the police has called him and has taken his signature
at any time.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
19. Vide Exh.180, Manoj Dinkarrao Fansekar PW 7
has been examined. He has been declared hostile. On cross
examination by learned Public Prosecutor, the witness has
only admitted to the effect that on 1.3.2001, the officers of
CID Crime had taken his statement. However, the contents
of the statement are totally denied and he has not been
cross examined by the defence advocate.
20. Vide Exh.183 PW 8 - Ranchhodbhai Manilal Patel
has been examined. This police witness has registered the
complaint at Exh.82 and had prepared the panchnama at
Exh.149 on 22.1.1997. Nothing material shaking the
veracity of this witness has come on record during the cross
examination by the defence side.
21. Vide Exh.184 PW 9 Dhananjay Avinash
Chaudhary has been examined by the prosecution who was
working as Police Inspector, City CID Crime Branch, Zone
Office, Vadodara and on studying the complaint, it reveals
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
that loan of Rs.16,66,000/- has been obtained by
Bharatbhai Thakkar from GSFC based on forged documents
and involvement of officers of the Corporation was also
found and since the provisions of the Anti Corruption Act
were also attracted and he was not authorized to investigate
had reported the same to the District Judge, Vadodara for
invoking the provisions of the Anti Corruption Act and to
hand over investigation to the officer not below the rank of
DySP. Thereafter, the Court ordered to investigate the
offence through Mr.Chauhan, DySP. Thereafter, another
order came to be passed by learned Court for investigating
the offence by the officer of Police Inspector rank and as per
the order passed by the Additional I.G., CID Crime, Gujarat
investigation was handed over to him and on 4.1.2000, he
took over investigation. Thereafter, detailed statements were
recorded of the complainant - Somsing as well as Vigilance
Officer Mr.Bhatt of the GSFC and other officers who were
involved in the preliminary inquiry. On investigation, other
co-accused Mr.Parikh had fled away to America and on
inquiry, it was found that there are no chances in near
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
future of his return and therefore, his name was shown as
absconded in column No.2 of the chargesheet and after
obtaining relevant documents, however, such documents
were frequently needed by the Corporation, such documents
were handed over to them as required on condition that
they will hand over back to the Investigating Officer as and
when called for and such documents were handed over to
the complainant - Somsing and on 21.7.2001 chargesheet
was filed against two accused i.e. Bharatbhai Thakkar and
Hirenbhai Vora on finding enough proof of crime having
been committed by them. He has also relied on various
documents which were appended along with the complaint.
21.1 In the cross examination, this witness has
admitted that he has got verified the documents and has
also verified personally. He has also admitted in the cross
examination that when accused No.1 applied for loan, the
Corporation had inquired all the aspects which includes site
visit as well as checking of documents supplied by him. He
has also admitted that in the original complaint, other
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
officers were also shown as co-accused along with Chartered
Accountant. He has also admitted that those who were not
found guilty have not been shown as accused in the present
case. He has also admitted that he has taken the
statements of officers of Punjab National Bank and are also
shown as witnesses in the present case in the chargesheet.
He has also admitted that officers of the Corporation had
inquired at the factory site. He has also admitted that due
to nonpayment of loan dues, the Corporation had
undertaken the process of auction. He has also admitted
that he has not sent documents for opinion to the
handwriting expert. He has also admitted that there is no
whisper with regard to bribery in his investigation. He has
also admitted that he has no authority to investigate the
case regarding corruption.
22. From the evidence on record, the facts which
surface are as follows:
23. From Exh.81 i.e. deposition of Somsinh -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
complainant and the complaint at Exh.82 which is dated
27.12.1996, it is clear that the present complainant has
deposed based on the documentary evidence and has no
personal knowledge about the crime committed.
24. As far as deposition of PW 2 - Amit Chavda at
Exh.142 is concerned, he is signatory to Exh.149
panchnama carried out on 22.1.1997 after lodging of the
complaint and after advertisement of auction dated
20.12.1996 at Exh.184. From the said panchnama, it
cannot be said that documents were forged and that the
present appellant was maker of such documents. At the
best, machineries which were lying at the factory were not
the same against which loan was sanctioned is surfacing on
record which creates doubt against the present accused.
However, how strong doubt may be it cannot replace
standard of proof to be proved beyond reasonable doubt,
more particularly, when the fact of machineries not
purchased as per sanctioned loan and those machines were
of some other company coupled with the fact of such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
machineries being brought from other suppliers and being
sold thereafter and replacing them by substandard
machineries is not proved.
25. From the deposition of PW 3 at Exh.150 i.e.
Zulfikar Shaikh and panch witness of panchnama at
Exh.107 carried out by Mr.G.M.Bhatt i.e. PW 5 who has
been examined at Exh.152 and had prepared the
panchnama at Exh.107 on 31.5.1996 while carrying out
preliminary inquiry. This witness after being declared
hostile has supported the case of the prosecution. However,
during his cross examination by the defence, he has stated
that it is true that the police has not recorded his statement
and that he has also not dictated the contents of the said
panchnama since he was not aware about the status of the
factory. Thus, deposition of this witness does not repose
confidence.
26. PW 4 Ramanbhai Chandubhai Talpada is also
signatory of the said panchnama at Exh.107 which has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
been prepared by Mr.G.M.Bhatt while conducting
preliminary inquiry. However, this witness does not
disclose with regard to the contents of the said panchnama
prepared during preliminary inquiry. Thus, from the
deposition of this witness also, the factum of contents of the
panchnama are not proved in accordance with law.
27. PW 5 Govindlal Maneklal Bhatt had prepared
preliminary inquiry report along with one Mr.Vaishnav.
From the deposition of this witness, what has been stated
by him is with regard to the preliminary inquiry carried out
by him and Mr.Vaishnav based on the statements recorded
by them. However, entire case is based on such preliminary
inquiry report wherein statement of the accused is also
placed on record by way of tentative Exh.106. This witness
has not given statement to the police. However, the
Investigating Officer states otherwise. Thus, from the
deposition of this witness what is proved that he had
prepared Inquiry Report based on which the present
complaint came to be filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
28. From the deposition of Shrikant Marutirao
Londhe at Exh.179, it appears that the witness has turned
hostile. However, he has stated that signature in the
partnership deed at Exh.115 is not his signature. However,
this aspect also does not prove the factum of accused
having signed the said partnership deed in the name of
Shrikant Londhe coupled with the fact that the Investigating
Officer in his cross examination at Exh.184 has admitted
that he has not sent any document to handwriting expert
for arriving at the conclusion.
29. PW 7 - Manoj Dinkarrao Fansekar is also
declared hostile except for admitting the fact in his cross
examination by learned Public Prosecutor that on 1.3.2001,
CID Crime has taken his statement. The case of the
prosecution does not get any support from the deposition of
this witness.
30. From the deposition of PW 8 - Ranchhodbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Manilal Patel the factum of panchnama prepared on
22.1.1997 which is at Exh.149 is proved. However, for the
reasons stated in paragraph 24, the said aspect is of no help
to the prosecution. This police witness has not taken any
statement of the complainant and has merely lodged the FIR
at Exh.82.
31. From the deposition of PW 9 - Dhananjay
Avinash Chaudhry i.e. Investigating Officer, it is clear that
this witness has taken the statements of officers of Punjab
National Bank from where the accused have alleged to have
obtained working capital. However, no such witnesses have
been examined in the present case. No expert opinion with
regard to admitted signature of so called partner Shrikant
Londhe has been taken by the Investigating Officer nor it
has been sent to get it compared with the partnership deed
at Exh.115 which is denied to have been signed by the said
partner. The Investigating Officer has not investigated with
regard to existence of the Webflex company and Gujarat
Roadways through which machineries were alleged to have
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
been purchased by the accused.
32. Thus, it clearly transpires from the deposition of
Mr.G.M.Bhatt i.e. PW 5 at Exh.152 read with deposition of
PW 9 i.e. Investigating Officer at Exh.184 that the accused
has been arraigned based on the report submitted by
Mr.G.M.Bhatt and Mr.Vaishnav dated 12.6.1994 alleged to
have been prepared by the committee constituted by the
GSFC for preliminary inquiry into the allegations of fraud
and forgery committed upon them. However, except
recording the statements of the officers of the GSFC and
panchas, no independent witness with regard to the
allegations as levelled against the present accused of forging
signature of partner despite partnership firm being
dissolved, forged documents of Webflex despite no such firm
having been existed, no investigation as to whether the said
machineries were brought through Gujarat Roadways
despite not in existence have been examined by the
prosecution.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
33. Despite the Investigating Officer having recorded
the statements of officers of Punjab National Bank from
where the accused had alleged to have taken working
capital have not been examined for the reasons best known
to the prosectuion. The investigation regarding forged
documents of Punjab National Bank has not been carried
out. Thus, it clearly transpires that only upon the
preliminary inquiry carried out by Mr.G.M.Bhatt and
Mr.Vaishnav, learned trial Court has come to the conclusion
that the accused has committed forgery and has thus
convicted the accused. It is required to be noted that to
prove the factum of forgery, the prosecution ought to have
proved by investigating and bringing on record that no such
company i.e. Webflex existed, secondly, no transport
company in the name of Gujarat Roadways existed and
thirdly, the signatures of the alleged partnership deed were
forged by the present appellant and documents purported to
have been issued by Punjab National Bank were also forged.
34. That machineries alleged to have been purchased
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
at lower price from other firm than the Webflex ought to
have been investigated coupled with the fact that none of
the documents have been sent to the handwriting expert to
prove the factum of false and fabricated signatures by the
appellant and thus, factum of forgery is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
35. We have also considered the judgments relied
upon by learned advocate for the appellant. Though the are
on diffirent set of facts however have considered the
principles laid down in the said judgments. Thus, when the
prosecution has failed to prove that by forging documents
and signatures, the appellant having deceived the officers of
GSFC and thus fraudulently and dishonestly obtained the
loan and also having failed to prove that author of the so
called forged document is the appellant or on his behest,
they were prepared by Mr.Gelango, under the
circumstances, conviction is not sustainable. As far as
nonframing of charge under section 420 of IPC and still
conviction being handed down the the appelalnt is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
concerned, the said argument would become redundant and
acedemic in view of the fact that the prosecution has failed
to prove that the documents are forged by the appellant or
at his behest.
36. It is required to be appreciated that the accused
cannot be convicted on the sole basis of evidence collected
during preliminary inquiry carried out by the officers of the
GSFC. At the best such report could become foundational
step to put criminal machinery into action. Criminal justice
system operates in India on the strict rules and procedure
and are designed as to protect the right of the accused and
as such preliminary inquiry carried out by the officers of the
GSFC does not meet with this standard for the reasons
being that the inquiry report is a document that records the
statements of the witnesses to arrive at a prima facie
satisfaction that wrong has been committed with GSFC,
more particularly when persons examined during inquiry
are not present before the court of law to be thoroughly
cross examined and thus, their statements are to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
considered as hearsay. It is also required to be noted that
statement of the accused at Exh.106 cannot be basis of
conviction since at the best, it can be said to be extra
judicial confession which is a weak piece of evidence which
requires corroboration and in the present case, no such
corroborative piece of evidence is brought on record, more
particularly, when the Investigating Officer has failed to
carry out investigation so as to prove the case of the
prosecution of forgery, more particularly, forged documents
and signatures as alleged in the complaint based on the
admission of the accused during preliminary inquiry carried
out by the officers of the GSFC. In the case of Sahadevan v.
State of T.N., reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403 Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that:
"Upon a proper analysis of the
above-referred judgments of this
Court, it will be appropriate to state
the principles which would make an
extra- judicial confession an
admissible piece of evidence capable
of forming the basis of conviction of
an accused. These precepts would
guide the judicial mind while dealing
with the veracity of cases where the
prosecution heavily relies upon an
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
extra-judicial confession alleged to
have been made by the accused.
The Principles
i) The extra-judicial confession is a
weak evidence by itself. It has to be
examined by the court with greater
care and caution.
ii) It should be made voluntarily and
should be truthful.
iii) It should inspire confidence.
iv) An extra-judicial confession
attains greater credibility and
evidentiary value, if it is supported
by a chain of cogent circumstances
and is further corroborated by other
prosecution evidence.
v) For an extra-judicial confession to
be the basis of conviction, it should
not suffer from any material
discrepancies and inherent
improbabilities.
vi) Such statement essentially has to
be proved like any other fact and in
accordance with law.
Tested on the afore-stated principles and on reading of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
entire deposition of Mr.G.M.Bhatt he has recorded the
statement of present accused in the form of confession on
7.6.1996 (Exh. 106) however is not supported by a chain of
cogent circumstances and is also not corroborated by other
prosecution evidence. Under the circumstances it cannot be
said that the prosecution has succeed in proving the
charges against the present accused.
37. That deposition of PW 5 - Mr.G.M.Bhatt at
Exh.152 is purely based on the preliminary inquiry report
carried out by him along with Mr.Vaishnav that too on the
admission made by the present accused. Thus, the
evidence collected during preliminary inquiry may be
sufficient to put the criminal machinery into motion but is
not sufficient to prove criminal guilt. Thus, there is no
direct evidence put forward by the prosecution to prove the
offence of forgery and cheating by examining FSL expert,
officers of Punjab National Bank, inquiring with regard to
non-existing Webflex com and transporting such goods
through non-existing transport company also with regard to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
non-sending of admitted signature of so called partner who
has been examined as PW 6 - Shrikant Londhe. Thus, in
absence of testimony of handwriting expert who can give
clear cut opinion on the signature or handwriting, in
absence of proof from the manufacturer of machineries i.e.
Webflex (if at all Webflex existed or not is not investigated in
to) to prove that such purchases were never made by the
accused and that documents of transportation by Gujarat
Transport Company (if at all transport company existed or
not is not investigated in to) and that of bank statements
and letter of obtaining working capital from the Punjab
National Bank were forged and false. The investigation with
regard to forged documents having prepared at the behest of
accused by one Mr.Ghelango who shifted to Dubai is not
coming on record during investigation. Thus, the
prosecution having failed to prove each and every element of
crime through admissible evidence and by not presenting
the witnesses to prove such forged documents and in
absence of such witnesses who were not subjected to cross
examination, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
appellant had committed the crime as alleged.
38. Thus, it is well settled law that how strong
suspicion may be it cannot take place of proof and it is the
duty cast upon the Court to ensure that suspicion cannot
take place of legal proof. In the case in hand, learned trial
Court seems to have carried away by the fact of accused
having admitted before the Inquiry Officer and when the
prosecution has failed to prove very foundation of forgery of
documents or fraudulent transaction, personal liberty of a
person can never be taken away based on the evidences
collected during preliminary inquiry by officers of GSFC
having evidentiary value of standard of preponderance of
probabilities. Thus, there is poor and shabby investigation
and the Investigating Officer having not remained vigilant in
discharging his duty under such circumstances, the
prosecution has failed to prove the offence of forgery by
adducing cogent, reliable and admissible evidence. When
the offences under the Indian Penal Code of false and forged
documents and signature are not proved, offence under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
section 42(1) of the Gujarat State Financial Corporation Act
1951 also cannot be sustained which attracts offence for
willfully making any false statement whereby security is
given to the financial corporation for any accommodation
granted by it under the Act. Even otherwise, Section 42(3) of
the said Act provides for cognizance by a Court on a written
complaint. As provided under section 2(d) of the CrPC
means any allegation made orally or in writing to the
Magistrate with a view to his taking action under the Code
that some person whether known or unknown has
committed an offence but does not include the police report
i.e. chargesheet. In the case on hand, cognizance has been
taken by the Special Court based on the chargesheet
submitted by the Investigating Officer and as such on such
police report, which the Court has no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of. Thus also, conviction under section 42(1) of
the said Act is required to be set aside.
39. At this stage, it is required to be noted that
admission before the Inquiry Officers of the GSFC cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
looked into for one more reason being that they would be
directly interested in outcome of the criminal prosecution
coupled with the fact that such admission being extra
judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and cannot
be relied upon for convicting the present appellant without
there being any other proven corroborative piece of evidence
and chain of cogent circumstances. The tenor of the Inquiry
report demonstrates that Mr. G.M. Bhatt had made up his
mind to find the present appellant guilty, coupled with the
fact that the investigating officer has proceeded to
investigate on the basis that the offense was committed in
such a manner that no evidence was left, else the lacunae
as recorded herein above would not have remained in the
investigation. Under the circumstances, appellant ensures
acquittal. It is also highly surprising as to why only 2 out of
9 accused have been charge sheeted and tried. No reasons
whatsoever is coming forth from the prosecution for not
trying the 7 co-accused despite 9 names having given by the
complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/900/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
40. Under the circumstances, Criminal Appeal
No.617 of 2010 preferred by the appellant - original accused
Bharatbhai Maganbhai Thakkar succeeds and the same is
allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction
dated 7.4.2010 passed in Special Case No.5 of 2001 by
learned Special Judge, F.T.C. No.5, Vadodara is set aside.
The accused be set at liberty if he is in jail and if not
required in any other case.
In view of the above, Criminal Appeal No.900 of
2010 preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence
stands dismissed. R & P be sent back forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
H.M. PATHAN
