Research › Browse › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 221 (GUJ)

STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANSUKHLAL LOVCHAND CHOKSI

1984-08-31

Y.B.BHATT

body1984
Y. B. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal by the State of Gujarat challenges the judgment and order of acquittal dated 3 1/08/1984 in Criminal Case No. 179 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Junagadh acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 18 19 and 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act 1946 ( 2 ) BEFORE dealing with the present appeal on merits it is necessary to bear in mind the well established principle of law that the appellate court should be slow and reluctant to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal unless the same is or amounts to a perversity in law or is eminently opposed to the evidence on record. The appellate court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal order merely because on a re-appreciation of the evidence another view may perhaps be possible. ( 3 ) I am also required to bear in mind the principle laid down by the Supreme Court and reiterated in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy reported at AIR 1981 SC 1417 at para 6 thereof to the effect that when the appellate court concurs with the logic and reasoning of the trial court and confirms the same it does not require to give a detailed and lengthy reasoning in support of the same nor is the appellate court require to re-narrate the entire evidence on record. ( 4 ) WITH these principles in mind I shall now deal with the merits of the present appeal. ( 5 ) THE prosecution case is to the effect that the accused was holding a licence under the Bombay Money Lenders Act and had applied for renewal of the licence pertaining to the year 1982. In connection with the application for renewal of the licence the accounts and records of the accused for the period from 1/01/1981 to 31/12/1981 were examined. As a result of this examination it was found that the accused had failed to obtain signatures of the respective debtors in prescribed From No. 8 that he had failed to obtain signatures of the debtors on prescribed From No. 9 and had failed to despatch the annual statement in the prescribed From No. 1; to the concerned debtors under postal certificate. It was also found that the accused had not signed the prescribed From No 9 by hand but had used a rubber stamp of his signature. The accused was therefore charged with having not complied with or having violated the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the said Act and was therefore liable to be punished under Section 34 of the said Act. The complaint at Exh 1 on the record of the case was filed by the Assistant District Registrar (Money Lenders) Junagadh. ( 6 ) THE prosecution has examined Devsurbhai Naranbhai (PW1-Exh. 15) who is the complainant. He holds the post of Assistant District Registrar (Money Lenders) Junagadh. He slates that he had received a letter dated 26/07/1982 under the signature of Registrar (Money Lenders) Rajkot whereby the various facts supposedly constituting the aforesaid offence have been set out etc. ( 7 ) THIS witness who is the complainant fails to support the prosecution case as sought to be made out in the complaint at Exh. 1. This witness was obliged to admit in his cross-examination that he is not familiar with the signature of the accused and has not had any occasion to see the accused making his signature and therefore he is unable to state whether the concerned document bear the signature of the accused or not. He further admits that he has not personal knowledge and therefore cannot make any statement as to whether the signature of the accused had been obtained in the departmental proceedings under pressure and by coercion which is the defence of the accused as per his statement at Exh. 7. This witness further admits that he has no knowledge or information as to whether the relevant case papers had been sent to the District Registrar at Rajkot while obtaining sanction for the present prosecution. This witness further admits that to his knowledge no inculpatory statement had been obtained from the accused particularly a statement wherein the accused after his signature had made an endorsement Perforce. This witness is further obliged to admit his ignorance as to the contents of the prescribed Form No. 8 and particularly as to whether the said form mentions therein that the signature of the debtor is required to be taken there or not. Similarly he professes ignorance as to the requirements of the prescribed Form No. 9. This witness is further obliged to admit his ignorance as to the contents of the prescribed Form No. 8 and particularly as to whether the said form mentions therein that the signature of the debtor is required to be taken there or not. Similarly he professes ignorance as to the requirements of the prescribed Form No. 9. It therefore becomes obvious from the evidence of this witness that the present complaint has been filed merely upon the direction of the superior officer and that this witness has neither any factual knowledge as regards the transactions or documents in question nor as regards the prescribed forms. This witness therefore does not advance the prosecution case any further. ( 8 ) THE prosecution has examined one Virendra Pandia (PW2.-Exh. 24) who professes to have made an inquiry under Sections 18 and 19 of the said Act. This witness of course states that the Form No. 8 should be signed on the reverse by the debtors as an acknowledgment for having received the Form that similarly no signature of the debtor had been obtained on the carbon copy of the Form No. 9 and that the accused had not maintained any record to show that the annual statement in Form No. 12 had been furnished or sent to the debtor either in person or by post under postal certificate. He further states that in Form No. 9 the accused has not signed it by hand but has merely used a rubber stamp of his signature. However this witness is also obliged to admit as in the case of the earlier witness that he has not seen any inculpatory statement executed by the accused wherein the endorsement Perforce has been made by the accused below his signature. This witness is further obliged to admit (collectively) in respect of Form Nos 8 9 and 12 to the effect that they are forms prescribed under the rules framed under the Act; but the said forms do not show on the face of it that the same are required to be signed by the debtor. Similarly in respect of Form No. 12 he admits that the forms do not require that debtor should sign the same in acknowledgment of having received the said annual statment or that the money lender should obtain a postal certificate in proof of having dispatched the same to the debtor. Similarly in respect of Form No. 12 he admits that the forms do not require that debtor should sign the same in acknowledgment of having received the said annual statment or that the money lender should obtain a postal certificate in proof of having dispatched the same to the debtor. The trial court was therefore justified in concluding that the evidence of this witness does not establish the commission of the alleged offences within the meaning of Sections 18 and 19 of the said Act. ( 9 ) THE prosecution has also examined one Yashoder Desai (PW3-Exh. 32) who is the Registrar to Money Lenders Rajkot. This witness has been obliged to admit that the xxxx documents which have been attached i. e. the bill books. etc. containing prescribed Form Nos. 8 9 and 12 have not been inquired into by him. He further admits that the accused has not made any endorsement as to acknowledgment of the receipt of the order dated 23/06/1982 which purports to be an order based on the aforesaid inculpatory statment. Moreover this witness is unable to identify the handwriting or the signature on the so-called inculpatory statement at Exh. 23. This witness is further obliged to admit like the earlier witnesses that the prescribed Form Nos. 8 and 9 do not indicate that the signature of the debtor is required to be obtained thereon. Thus the trial court is also justified in its finding that even this witness does not establish the case of the prosecution. ( 10 ) THE trial court was also justified in accepting the submission of the accused in his written statement at Exh 7 to the effect that he has been putting his signature on the prescribed Form No. 9 for more than 25 years not by hand but by using a rubber stamp and that this practice of long standing has been accepted by the authorities. I therefore see no reason why this finding requires to be interfered with particularly since the signature of the accused though affixed by the use of a rubber stamp is admitted by the accused and that by itself cannot be used against him. I therefore see no reason why this finding requires to be interfered with particularly since the signature of the accused though affixed by the use of a rubber stamp is admitted by the accused and that by itself cannot be used against him. Moreover there is no provision of law pointed out by the prosecution which requires that on facts and circumstances of the case and in the context of the Bombay Money Leaders Act 1946 the use of a rubber stamp for the signature of the Money Lender in question is prohibited or that there is any mandatory requirement requiring the money lender to put his signature in his personal handwriting. ( 11 ) IT therefore becomes clear that the judgment and order of acquittal challenged in the present appeal are amply justified and do not require any interference by this Court. The same is therefore confirmed and the present appeal is accordingly dismissed. .