State of Gujarat vs Chandrakant T. Kachia

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present appeal, u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.7.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anand in Criminal Case No. 4800-B of 1985, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

2.1 The Respondent - accused was serving as Junior Clerk, Senior Clerk, Senior Clerk and Store Keeper from 28.5.1973 to 23.6.1977 in Veterinary College at Anand and at that time, when he was discharging his duties, in collusion with accused No. 2 against whom trial is abetting, in the matter of purchase of chemicals and equipments for each financial year, he was in possession of the account records, quotations comparative statements with a view to gain monetary by showing higher price of chemicals as well as equipments, the accused made forged documents, and thereby he misappropriated the amount. Therefore, he was booked for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.2 Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, Respondent was arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet was filed against him before the court of learned JMFC, Anand. Thereafter, the trial was initiated against the Respondent.

2.3 To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 6 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.

2.4 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure , and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the Respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 26.7.1994.

2.5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court the Appellant State has preferred the present appeal.

It was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law; the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present Respondent. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Mr. Jani also submitted that during the course of investigation, the accused No. 2 was expired. The report of the auditor and other documentary evidence, upon which the learned trial Judge has not relied and the fact that the accused himself filed Special Civil Suit No. 40 of 1980 before the Civil Court, Nadiad and allied facts pertaining to the said Civil Suit, but the learned trial Judge has ignored the facts and acquitted the accused. There were sufficient witnesses examined but the same were not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. The ingredients of Sections 420, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code were also proved against the accused. Even the complaint at Exhibit 9 and evidence of complainant, Principal of Veterinary College, Anand was not properly appreciated by the learned trial Judge. Even the ingredients Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code are also proved against the accused. Therefore, he prayed to quash and set aside the order of the learned trial Judge by allowing this Appeal.

Learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing on behalf of the Respondent accused submitted that when the ingredients of Section 415 were not proved before the learned trial Judge, the offence u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been proved against the Respondent - accused. There was not any single evidence against the Respondent - accused to prove the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the Appeal is required to be dismissed

It is also a 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 reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy and Another, wherein it is held as under:

... This Court has observed in Girja Nandini Devi and Others Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhury, that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.

Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.

I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the Appellant-State. It appears that when the ingredients of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code was not proved, then the question of any forgery and cheating is not arisen. In the instant case, the offence is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Even the witnesses, who were examined, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Against the accused No. 2, who expired during the course of trial but there was no complaint against him lodged by the prosecution. The handwriting of the accused was not sent to the expert. The trial court has clearly recorded a finding that there is no evidence against the accused Respondent, which links the accused in the commission of the offence alleged. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record.

In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the Respondent of the charges leveled against him.

I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.

In view of the above, the Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 26.7.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anand in Criminal complaint No. 4800-B of 1985 is hereby confirmed. Record and proceedings to be sent back to the concerned lower Court.