The State appealed against the acquittal of accused persons for forgery. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case due to investigative negligence and lack of expert evidence, confirming the trial court's discharge. The appeal was dismissed.
No interference; Impugned judgment of acquittal confirmed; Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR.A/783/1994
1/6
JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 783 of 1994
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
=========================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?=========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus
ARVINDBHAI JAGJIVAN - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
Ms DARSHNA PANDIT Ld. APPfor Appellant(s) : 1,
MR MA MEMON for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2.
=========================================================
CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 08/01/2008
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by the
appellant-State under sec. 378 of CrPC against
the judgment and order of acquittal dated
CR.A/783/1994
2/6
JUDGMENT
9.5.1994 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bagsara in Criminal Case
No. 267 of 1992.
2. According to the prosecution, against the
present respondents, a complaint was filed and
investigation was carried out by the police for
the offence punishable under section 468, 465,
188 and 34 of IPC. After completion of
investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the
Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Bagsara. Thereafter, the Criminal Case
No. 267 of 1992 was registered against the
respondents. The witnesses were examined and
documentary evidence were also produced before
the trial court and the statements of the
respondents were recorded under sec. 313 of CrPC
by the trial court. At the end of the trial,
both the respondents were acquitted by the
learned Judge. Against the said judgment and
order of acquittal, the present appeal has been
preferred by the appellant.
3. Heard Ms. Darshana Pandit learned APP for the
appellant. She has submitted that the trial
court has not applied its mind while passing the
acquittal order. It is on record to show that
both the respondents, in collusion with each
other, misused the receipt of examination and
photograph of respondent no. 2 was taken out and
respondent no. 1 has affixed his own photograph
and bogus signatures of Principal and other
officers of the school were obtained and
CR.A/783/1994
3/6
JUDGMENT
thereafter appeared in the examination. She has
also submitted that prima facie it shows that
both the respondents have committed the alleged
offence and forged the document like
examination receipt and respondent no. 1 has
appeared in the examination on behalf of
respondent no. 2. She has also submitted that no
doubt there may be some negligence in the
investigation by the Investigating Agency and
proper investigation may not be carried out by
the Investigating Agency, but it is not fatal to
the prosecution case and the learned Judge
cannot apply his mind in such a way and hold
that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Learned advocate Mr. MA Memon appearing on
behalf of the respondents, is heard. He has
submitted that it is a case of documentary
evidence and just to prove forgery, the
important aspect of hand writing expert's
opinion is required to be produced on record,
but the Investigating Agency did not bother to
obtain any expert's opinion. It is also
submitted by Mr Memon that it is not proved by
the prosecution that how receipt for appearing
in the examination was prepared in the name of
respondent no. 1. He has also submitted that so
far as the provision of sec. 465 of IPC is
concerned, the ingredients of cheating cannot be
satisfied within the meaning of said section by
CR.A/783/1994
4/6
JUDGMENT
the prosecution. It is also submitted that the
learned Judge has rightly applied his mind and
proper reasons are also given and prosecution
has failed to produce the evidence to prove the
chargeslevelledagainstthepresent
respondents. He, therefore, submitted that this
appeal cannot be entertained and the same may
be dismissed.
5. Heard both the learned advocates appearing for
the parties. Read the judgment of the trial
court. Learned APP has drawn my attention at
para-11 of the judgment. It is true that the
trial court has observed that the statement of
respondent no. 1 was recorded which is produced
at Ex. 36, but signature of the accused was not
taken. Learned APP has also drawn my attention
that the statement of respondent no. 2 is also
produced at Ex. 48 and same scenario is repeated
by the Investigating Agency. It is true that the
Investigating Officer has not obtained the
signatures of both the respondents as well as
the Officers of the School, like Principal, etc.
It is also on record that the Investigating
Agency has not called for the hand writing
expert's opinion. The document at Ex. 43 is the
main document and as per the say of the
prosecution, it was forged by the present
respondents, but Investigating Agency has failed
to investigate into the said aspect. It is
pertinent to note that when Ex. 43 which was in
possession of the Head Master of the school,
CR.A/783/1994
5/6
JUDGMENT
how, it has come in the possession of
respondents no. 1 and 2. It also appears at this
juncture that the school management is at
negligence and has not prepared any arrest
panchnama and how respondents were arrested is
also not on record. The panch did not support to
the panchnama and panchnama was not proved by
the prosecution. So far as sec. 188 of IPC is
concerned, just to prove the said version, the
prosecution has examined the witness Harish
Jadav PW-10 Ex. 46, but he never bothered to
inquire or verify any papers with regard to the
notification and he has no knowledge regarding
publication of the notification. Therefore, from
the judgment itself and the evidence produced
before the trial court, the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. In my view, therefore, there is no
substance in the appeal.
6. It is settled legal position that in acquittal
Appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to
re-write the Judgment or to give fresh
reasonings when the Appellate Court is in
agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial
Court acquitting the accused. In the instant
case, this Court is in full agreement with the
reasons given and findings recorded by the trial
court while acquitting the respondents – accused
and adopting the said reasons and for the
reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned
Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires
CR.A/783/1994
6/6JUDGMENT
no interference by this Court at this stage.
Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed.
The impugned judgment and order dated 9.5.1994
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Bagsara in Criminal Case No. 267/1992
acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby
confirmed.
(Z.K. SAIYED, J.)
mandora/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal under section 378 CrPC due to apparent negligence in investigation and lack of expert opinion.
Whether the prosecution successfully proved the case of forgery and violation of public service rules beyond reasonable doubt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
settled legal positionReferred¶6
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Gujarat
Arvindbhai Jagjivan
Z.K. Saiyed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court