Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1621 (GUJ)

STATE OF GUJARAT v. ILIYASBHAI ADAMBHAI VOHRA

2016-08-03

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1)3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.5.2000 rendered by learned 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anand in Criminal Case No.2887 of 1999. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondents by hatching conspiracy and in order to obtain forged passport, prepared forged and fake documentary evidence in the nature of school leaving certificate, ration card, marriage certificate etc., and thereafter tendering such documents before the passport authority, obtained passport which is also forged. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the respondents accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr.Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and wrongfully granted benefit of acquittal to the accused though there is ample evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime in question. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and wrongfully granted benefit of acquittal to the accused though there is ample evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime in question. In his submission, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the judgment of acquittal which is required to be reversed and the respondents are required to be convicted, as such. 6. This Court has heard Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant State. Though served, none appears for the respondents. It is pertinent to note that though several attempts are made to effect the service of warrant, but the same could not be served upon respondent No.3 who is prime accused who alleged to have obtained forged passport as she has left the country. 7. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. As per the prosecution version, the respondents by hatching conspiracy and in order to obtain forged passport, prepared forged and fake documentary evidence in the nature of school leaving certificate, ration card, marriage certificate etc., and thereafter tendering such documents before the passport authority, obtained passport which is also forged and thereby committed the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 420, 120-B of IPC and section 12(B)(2)(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. 8. In order to prove the aforesaid offences against the respondents accused, the prosecution has examined several witnesses, as stated above and almost all the police officials who were either involved in the investigation or in recovery of such documents have given their oral evidence in accordance with their acts. However, on overall analysis of their evidence, it becomes clear that the Police Sub Inspector Mr.R.G.Patel who is the complainant in the present proceedings and indisputably, he has carried out the entire investigation and filed the chargesheet. All the panchas have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. However, on overall analysis of their evidence, it becomes clear that the Police Sub Inspector Mr.R.G.Patel who is the complainant in the present proceedings and indisputably, he has carried out the entire investigation and filed the chargesheet. All the panchas have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Even on analysis of the evidence of the police officials also, it appears that while obtaining alleged forged passport, the documents as referred to be forged were produced and after due verification, the said police officials have given no objection certificate and hence, the passport came to be issued. Subsequently, after lodging the complaint, the same police officials have said that the said documents which were tendered while processing the passport application are not genuine and no explanation is forthcoming during the course of trial. 8.1 Learned trial Court has also elaborately dealt with the issue so far as the signature on forged documents is concerned. The handwriting expert’s opinion which is received and produced before learned trial Court is not sufficient and not conclusive in nature and, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly not placed reliance upon the said evidence and no definite opinion can be formed upon such expert’s opinion that the documents in question are forged. Though the police official who himself is the complainant and has carried out the entire investigation and other police officials are witnesses, they are not in a position to clearly indicate that out of eight accused, as to who has forged the documents in question. So as to fix criminal liability, there cannot be any joint liability and omnibus charge against all the accused for forging particular documents, but there should be specific allegation and proof thereof concerning each of the accused linking with the alleged crime. On going through the entire material on record, it appears that the prosecution is not able to establish as regards to the alleged forgery on the part of each accused and, therefore they cannot be held responsible jointly for the charge alleged against them. On going through the entire material on record, it appears that the prosecution is not able to establish as regards to the alleged forgery on the part of each accused and, therefore they cannot be held responsible jointly for the charge alleged against them. 8.2 On going through the entire material on record, it clearly reveals that though the prosecution has registered the case for the offence punishable under section 12(b)(2)(3) of the Passports Act and when the respondents are charged for the offence punishable under section 12(b)(2)(3) of the Passports Act, requisite prior sanction of the competent authority was required to be obtained. Section 12(b)(2)(3) and Section 15 of the Passports Act 1967 read as under. “Section 12(b)(2)(3) : Offences and penalties.- xxx xxx xxx (b) knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority alters or attempts to alter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document; or xxx xxx xxx (2) Whoever abets any offence punishable under [sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, be punishable with the punishment provided in that sub-section for that offence. (3) Whoever contravenes any condition of a passport or travel document or any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.” Section 15. Previous sanction of Central Government necessary.- No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government or such officer or authority as may be authorised by that Government by order in writing in this behalf.” 8.3 Indisputably, though the respondents were prosecuted under the provisions of the Passports Act, no previous sanction from the Central Government as envisaged under section 15 of the said Act was obtained and for want of sanction from the competent authority also, the entire prosecution gets vitiated. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 9. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 10. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.