Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1737 (GUJ)

Sanjaybhai Kantilal Joshi v. State of Gujarat

2016-08-12

B.N.KARIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred with the prayer to quash and set aside the First Information Report being C.R. No. 1-47 of 2012 registered on 17.2.2012, before the Shaher-Kotda Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the India Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Mr. Jagdishbhai Panchal, had paid fine of Rs. 500/- before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 26, (Mobile Court), Ahmedabad, on behalf of the present applicant upon his pleading guilty in connection with Non-cognizable offence registered against him. The said fine was paid by Mr. Jagdish Panchal by tendering a currency note of Rs. 500/-, which was deposited by the complainant with the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Lal-Darwaja, Ahmedabad. The said currency note turned out to be a 'forged' one and was returned to the complainant by the cashier of the State Bank of India by affixing a seal of 'Forged'. It is further case of the prosecution that, when the present applicant was informed regarding the same the applicant did not give any satisfactory explanation and therefore, a written complaint was addressed by the Office of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 26 (Mobile Court), Ahmedabad, to the Senior Police Inspector, Shaher-Kotda Police Station, Ahmedabad. On the basis of the said written complaint, the First Information Report dated 17.2.2012 being C.R. No. 1-47 of 2012, came to be lodged. 3. Heard Mr. Vaibhav A Vyas, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1. 4. It was argued by Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the applicant that the complaint was registered by the Officer of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (Health Department) against the present applicant, as well as, all other undertakings (about 200) situated in the Pushpraj Estate on 16.02.2012 before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court (Health & Sanitation Mobile Court). That, fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed upon all the undertakings. That, on behalf of the applicant Mr. Jagdish bhai Panchal, working in the manufacturing unit of the applicant, on the very same day paid fine of Rs. 500/- only before the Mobile Court by tendering a currency note of denomination of Rs. 500/- only. That, fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed upon all the undertakings. That, on behalf of the applicant Mr. Jagdish bhai Panchal, working in the manufacturing unit of the applicant, on the very same day paid fine of Rs. 500/- only before the Mobile Court by tendering a currency note of denomination of Rs. 500/- only. That, on 17.2.2012, when the said currency note was deposited by the complainant with State Bank of India, it turned out to be forged and was returned to the complainant by affixing a seal of ("forged"). That, on 17.2.2012, FIR came to be registered against the present applicant under Section 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. That, the applicant was not knowing that the currency note in question was a counterfeit currency note, and therefore, there was no question for the applicant to use the said counterfeit currency note knowingly as genuine, further, he was not knowing or having any reason to believe that the said currency note was counterfeit currency note. That, he has received a phone call from the clerk of the Mobile Court at about 3:00 p.m. on 17.2.2012 informing him about the counterfeit currency note reported to the Mobile Court and within ten minutes to make payment of Rs. 500/- only. That, the said phone call was received on the mobile phone of the applicant from land line No. 32981436. At that time, he was out of station for some work at Chiloda and concerned person was informed on telephone that it would take about two hours for the applicant to report before the Mobile Court. The applicant has also requested authorities concerned to collect the said amount from the manufacturing premises of the applicant. That, after returning Ahmedabad within half an hour, the applicant tried to contact back on the said land line number for more than ten times, but, he could not contact on the said mobile number. That, thereafter, he reached Ahmedabad at about 5:00 p.m. and the applicant approached the Office of the Health Department at Ahmedabad and inquired regarding the location of the Mobile Court that cannot be traced and he was informed that a letter/notice will be issued to him in this regard. That, thereafter, he reached Ahmedabad at about 5:00 p.m. and the applicant approached the Office of the Health Department at Ahmedabad and inquired regarding the location of the Mobile Court that cannot be traced and he was informed that a letter/notice will be issued to him in this regard. Further, on 03.03.2012, when he was out of station along with his family members at Palanpur for 'Jem' ceremony of his son, the concerned person of the Mobile Court approached the manufacturing unit of the applicant and served a copy of the letter dated 17.2.2012 informing the applicant to make payment of an amount of Rs. 500/- before the Mobile Court at the earliest. The applicant tried to make the payment of Rs. 500/- through Mr. Jagdishbhai Panchal. But, however, he was informed that owner of the manufacturing unit will have to personally approach the Mobile Court and make the payment of fine. As the applicant was engaged in a religious ceremony of 'Jem' of his son at his native place Dantiwada, District: Palanpur. When he came back to Ahmedabad after completing the ceremony on 09.03.2012, he approached the Office on 10.3.2012 and thereafter, on 12.3.12 and paid the fine of Rs. 500/- only as asked by the authorities. Thereafter, the applicant was informed that an FIR was registered against him. It is further argued that the applicant was not knowing that the currency note tendered on behalf of the applicant was a counterfeit currency note, and therefore, there was no question of knowingly used the said counterfeit currency note as genuine. That, ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 489-B of Indian Penal Code would not arise against the present applicant. That, the FIR is filed on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. That, he is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Folding machines, Semi Automatic Printing & 'Laxmi' Rotary Printing Machine's Parts in the name and style of Kudrat Engineering Works at Ahmedabad. That, he has obtained the certificate of registration from the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and a certificate of registration under the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turn over) Rules, 1957. That, he has obtained the certificate of registration from the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and a certificate of registration under the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turn over) Rules, 1957. That, he is a law abiding citizen and falsely implicated in the alleged offence on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, and therefore, it is requested by him to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No-I-47/2012 registered with the Shaherkotda Police Station, Ahmedabad and all the consequential proceedings along with other reliefs as prayed for in paragraph 6 of the application. 5. On the other side, Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1-State strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant and argued that knowingly the present applicant has submitted a counterfeit currency note of Rs. 500/- only by way of fine to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court. That, however, the applicant was informed on his mobile phone that the amount of fine deposited by him before the Court was a counterfeit currency note, but, no satisfactory reply was given by the applicant and on the contrary evasive reply was given by him. Therefore, criminal complaint was lodged with the police. Prima facie, in terms of the applicant, offence is established and at this juncture no powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Court interfering the investigation of the offence. Hence, it was requested by him to dismiss the application. 6. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by the learned advocates documentary evidences, it appears that at the initial stage this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant S Dave, J.) considering the nature of allegations was pleased to grant interim relief in terms of para 6(B) till final disposal of the application by an order dated 10.4.2012. If we consider the contents of the complaint lodged by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 26, Ahmedabad to the Senior Police Inspector, Shaherkotda Police Station, Ahmedabad, reveals that in connection with the case number 4585/2012 against the present applicant, he had admitted the offences, and therefore, fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed on him. Accordingly, this amount of fine was paid through Mr. Jagdish bhai Panchal. 500/- was imposed on him. Accordingly, this amount of fine was paid through Mr. Jagdish bhai Panchal. The same amount was deposited with the State Bank of India main branch at Lal-Darwaja, Ahmedabad, and the bank cashier informed that the amount of fine was a counterfeit currency note. The bank authority returned the counterfeit currency note with the seal of "forged". As further contended in the complaint that the applicant was informed on his mobile phone No. 9974841714 that the amount of fine, it was a counterfeit currency note, but no satisfactory reply was given and on the contrary evasive reply was given by the applicant. Therefore, as the present applicant deposited a counterfeit currency note in connection with the order passed in criminal case No. 4585/2012 before the Mobile Court, this complaint came to be filed. It transpires from the complaint that on receiving the alleged counterfeit currency note of Rs. 500/- only the cashier of the State Bank of India, Lal-Darwaja, Ahmedabad, with a seal of "forged", informed the Mobile Court. The applicant was informed on his mobile phone by giving an opportunity to replace the counterfeit currency note. But as per the complaint, no satisfactory response was given. The applicant has narrated his circumstances in his application that he was unable to contact the Mobile Court within ten minutes after receiving message from the concerned officer of the Mobile Court and to make payment of Rs. 500/- as he was engaged in some work at Chiloda and informed that within two hours he would return back. These contents are supported by the contents of the complaint that he was informed by the concerned authority of the Mobile Court. It also appears that on 16.02.2012, the complaint was lodged against the present applicant under Section 376 and 392 of the Bombay Provincial Corporation Act, (B.P.C. Act), 1949. Receipt dated 16.2.2012 shows the amount of Rs. 500/- received by the Assistant Superintendent of Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 26, Ahmedabad. On 17.2.2012, the applicant was informed in writing to deposit an amount of Rs. 500/- only as the previous amount paid by the applicant was a counterfeit currency note as per the endorsement of the cashier of State Bank of India, main branch at Lal-Darwaja, Ahmedabad. The applicant was directed to deposit the amount immediately before the Court. On 17.2.2012, the applicant was informed in writing to deposit an amount of Rs. 500/- only as the previous amount paid by the applicant was a counterfeit currency note as per the endorsement of the cashier of State Bank of India, main branch at Lal-Darwaja, Ahmedabad. The applicant was directed to deposit the amount immediately before the Court. It appears from the record that, again the applicant has deposited an amount of Rs. 500/- only before the Court and the receipt was issued under the signature of the Assistant Superintendent of Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad, dated 12.3.2012 in favour of the applicant. As per the description of this receipt, it is revealed that the applicant was imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- only on 16.2.2012 and he had deposited an amount of Rs. 500/- only. But, the currency note was found to be a counterfeit currency note, and therefore, this amount was replaced by way of a fine from the receipt issued on 12.3.2012 in favour of the applicant. It appears that he has again deposited the same amount before the court concerned. The applicant has also described his circumstances at relevant point of time that he was engaged in religious ceremony of 'Jem' of his son, which was scheduled 03.03.2012 to 08.03.2012. He has also stated that he had returned from Palanpur to Ahmedabad on 09.03.2012, in the night at about 11:00 p.m. On the very next day, he visited the office at the address mentioned in the referred chit on 10.3.2012. But, 10.03.2012 being the second Saturday, it was a non working day, and therefore, on 12.03.2012, he paid the fine of Rs. 500/- only as asked by the authorities. It appears that Certificate of Registration under Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, as well as Certificate of Registration under the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turn-Over) Rules, 1957, are produced on record issued in favour of Kudrat Engineering Works. No prudent man would think ever to submit a counterfeit currency note of Rs. 500/- only to deposit with the Court of law in connection with the fine imposed on him. In the instant case also, from the record and circumstances it can be said that the applicant has not knowingly or purposefully used the counterfeit currency note of Rs. 500/- only as genuine. 500/- only to deposit with the Court of law in connection with the fine imposed on him. In the instant case also, from the record and circumstances it can be said that the applicant has not knowingly or purposefully used the counterfeit currency note of Rs. 500/- only as genuine. On returning Ahmedabad from Palanpur, prima facie, it appears that he has tried to contact the concerned authority on 10.3.2012, but, that day being the second Saturday, it was a holiday, and therefore, on 12.3.2012 he has again deposited the said amount before the Court. However, complaint was lodged by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 26 on 17.2.2012 before depositing the amount of fine by the applicant. The applicant has tried to deposit the amount as opportunity was also given to him. As per the contents of the complaint alleged against him, therefore, he should not be dragged and involved in facing the criminal proceedings. 7. Under the circumstances as discussed above, criminal complaint i.e. FIR being C.R. No. 1-47/2012 pending before the criminal court of law on the ground of alleged counterfeit currency note, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to exercise the powers to do real and substantial justice for the administration for which alone the Court exist. 8. For the foregoing reasons, criminal complaint i.e. FIR being C.R. No. 1-47/2012 registered with the Shaherkotda Police Station, Ahmedabad, and consequential proceedings against the present applicant are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute, to the extent aforesaid.