State of Gujarat vs Jayantilal Ratilal Chavda

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 21.1.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar in Criminal Case No. 7597 of 1996, whereby the accused

has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

2.1 The respondent - accused was working as a House Tax Recovery Clerk in Junagadh Mahanagarpalika. It is the case of prosecution that

during the period between 3.8.2003 to 31.3.2004, the respondent - accused defrauded and cheated Junagadh Mahanagarpalika and

misappropriated the sum of Rs. 9,10,538.35 and the said sum has been used for his own purpose.

2.2 Therefore, a Criminal Case No. 7597 of 1996 with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against the learned Magistrate, Surendranagar

for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Necessary investigation

was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded and charge-sheet was filed against him before the court of learned Judicial

Magistrate, Surendranagar.

2.3 To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 7 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.

2.4 At the end of trial, after 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 21.1.1999.

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 Mr. H.L. Jani that the judgment and order of the learned 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.

At the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order

of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S.

Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Another, the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against

the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:

In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of

law that where two view are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below.

4.2 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court

has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:

From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would

not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion

arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two

views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the

appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court

has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances,

to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is

connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.

4.3 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh and Ors. reported in AIR

2007 SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. state of MP reported in AIR 2007 SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may

exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.

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. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the

prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Mr. H.L. Jani, 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.

I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and

hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is required to be dismissed.

In view of the aforesaid observation, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.