Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 812 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Yogeshbhai Ramanbhai Patel

2017-04-13

A.J.SHASTRI, S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2017
ORDER : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. The appellant - State has filed present two criminal appeals feeling aggrieved by common judgment and order, dated 15.7.2004, passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Fast Track Court, Anand in Sessions Case Nos. 130 and 131 of 2000. Since both the appeals are ordered to be heard and entertained in common, the same are being dealt with and disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused persons in connivance with each other, hatched preplanned conspiracy by putting counterfeit currency notes in circulation and by taking part in the said conspiracy by purchasing and selling Indian currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100 and Rs. 500 and transacted the same on 31.12.1999. It is further the case of prosecution that prior thereto, knowing fully well that the same are counterfeit currency notes and using the same as true currency notes at various places, had made an attempt to deposit the same in the account of one Yogesh Patel bearing Account No. 11610 in Charotar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Anand and trying to put the same in circulation as true currency notes. It is further the case of prosecution that knowing fully well that counterfeit notes of denomination of Rs. 100 are fake currency notes keeping them in their possession and with an intention to use the same as true currency notes, the accused Raju Ramesh keeping 150 fake currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100 and the accused Yogesh Ramanbhai sending 500 fake currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100 by preparing the fake labels of Chikhoda Service Station and the accused persons, inter-se, illegally helping each other and thereby, made an attempt to deposit in the account as stated hereinbefore. The said attempt was made to deposit by accused Chirag Girishbhai by bringing actual currency notes of Rs. 50,000/- in place of counterfeit notes from Charotar Regional Credit Society and depositing the same with the bank which has resulted into a filing of the complaint before the Anand Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 489B, 489C, 420, 240, 120-B and 114 of the IPC which came to be registered as complaint being I-C.R. No. 17 of 2000. 50,000/- in place of counterfeit notes from Charotar Regional Credit Society and depositing the same with the bank which has resulted into a filing of the complaint before the Anand Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 489B, 489C, 420, 240, 120-B and 114 of the IPC which came to be registered as complaint being I-C.R. No. 17 of 2000. 2.1 It appears from the record that pursuant to the registration of the complaint, the Investigating Officer has collected the necessary material and filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Sections 489B, 489C, 420, 240, 120-B and 114 of the IPC. But since the offence was triable by the court of sessions, the case was committed by the learned Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. and the same was then registered as Sessions Case No. 131 of 2000. The said sessions case has come up for consideration before the District Fast Track Judge, Anand, who, upon said committal, has framed the charge at Exh. 19. As such, two cases were registered with respect to the incident in question. Initially against Yogesh Ramanbhai Patel and the same was registered as Criminal Case No. 1808 of 2000 which was related to Sessions Case No. 130 of 2000, whereas for rest of the accused supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed which was registered as Criminal Case No. 3115 of 2000 before the learned Magistrate, Anand. Both these criminal cases, as stated, came to be registered as Sessions Case Nos. 130 and 131 of 2000 respectively. Since the cases are arising out of one common incident arraigning the accused persons, the same were tried together. The record further indicates that some of the accused persons have made an attempt to file discharge application but, the same having been rejected, the cases were put up for trial. So far as Sessions Case No. 130 of 2000 is concerned, the charge was framed at Exh. 19, whereas with regard to Sessions Case No. 131 of 2000, the charge came to be framed at Exh. 23. After framing of the charge, a plea came to be recorded of the respondents accused. So far as Sessions Case No. 130 of 2000 is concerned, the charge was framed at Exh. 19, whereas with regard to Sessions Case No. 131 of 2000, the charge came to be framed at Exh. 23. After framing of the charge, a plea came to be recorded of the respondents accused. But since their denial of commission of crime has come out, the sessions cases were put up for further adjudication wherein, by treating Sessions Case No. 130 of 2000 as a lead matter, in both the cases, the evidence in common was led. The prosecution was given an opportunity to lead the evidence which, in turn, has tendered ocular as well as documentary evidence in the following manner: Exhibit Particulars Exh.31 Deposition of P.W. No.1 Mineshkumar Gordhanbhai Patel on oath Exh. 33 Deposition of P.W. No.2 Mafatbhai Bhikhabhai on oath Exh. 35 Deposition of P.W. No.3 Harmanbhai Dhanjibhai Solanki on oath Exh. 36 Deposition of P.W. No.4 Mangesh Ganpat Korthi on oath Exh. 38 Deposition of P.W. No.5 Hafiz Nurmohamamd Vhora on oath Exh. 39 Deposition of P.W. No.6 Mangalbhai Ramanbhai Gohel on oath Exh. 41 Deposition of P.W. No.7 Idris Nurmohammad Vhora on oath Exh. 44 Deposition of P.W. No.8 Harishchandra Bhailalbhai Solanki on oath Exh. 71 Deposition of P.W. No. 9 Maheshbhai Ghanshyambhai Thakor on oath Exh. 72 Deposition of P.W. No.10 Harishchandra Bhailalbhai Patel on oath Exh. 77 Deposition of P.W. No.11 Anilkumar Ashabhai Patel on oath Exh. 86 Deposition of P.W. No.12 Rajendra Manharlal Bhatiya on oath Exh. 89 Deposition of P.W. No.13 Navinbhai Chhotalal Kachhiya on oath Exh. 90 Deposition of P.W. No.14 Rafiq Janmohammad on oath Exh. 91 Deposition of P.W. No.15 Vijaykumar Kantibhai on oath Exh. 92 Deposition of P.W. No.16 Bharatbhai Dahyabhai Patel on oath Exh. 94 Deposition of P.W. No. 17 Gunvantbhai Chhotabhai Patel on oath Exh. 99 Deposition of P.W. No.18 Ramanbhai Ramabhai Rohit on oath Exh. 103 Deposition of P.W. No.19 Dipakbhai Manubhai Patel on oath Exh. 108 Deposition of P.W. No.20 Vipulbhai Ravjibhai Patel on oath Exh. 111 Deposition of P.W. No.21 Ratanlal Khatiram Jain on oath Exh. 115 Deposition of P.W. No.22 Jitubhai Sartanbhai Rabari on oath Exh. 116 Deposition of P.W. No.23 Makhmulbeg Fajlubeg Mirza on oath Exh. 117 Deposition of P.W. No.24 Maheshbhai Mohanbhai Rana on oath Exh. 118 Deposition of P.W. No.25 Usmanbeg Fadjulla Mirza on oath Exh. 111 Deposition of P.W. No.21 Ratanlal Khatiram Jain on oath Exh. 115 Deposition of P.W. No.22 Jitubhai Sartanbhai Rabari on oath Exh. 116 Deposition of P.W. No.23 Makhmulbeg Fajlubeg Mirza on oath Exh. 117 Deposition of P.W. No.24 Maheshbhai Mohanbhai Rana on oath Exh. 118 Deposition of P.W. No.25 Usmanbeg Fadjulla Mirza on oath Exh. 119 Deposition of P.W. No.26 Afjalkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan on oath Exh. 120 Deposition of P.W. No.27 Bhagvanbhai Kachrabhai on oath Exh. 121 Deposition of P.W. No.28 Amrutbhai Varghabhai Desai on oath Exh. 122 Deposition of P.W. No.29 Ghanshyambhai Ramabhai on oath Exh. 124 Deposition of P.W. No.30 Manohar Mohandas Helyani on oath Exh. 140 Deposition of P.W. No.31 Abdulrasid Habib Raheman on oath Exh. 142 Deposition of P.W. No.32 Imdadali Jilanimiya Saiyad on oath Exh. 143 Deposition of P.W. No.33 Mutaharkhan @ Raja Mustufakhan Pathan on oath Exh. 148 Deposition of P.W. No.34 Keshubhai Rambhai Bhuva on oath Exh. 161 Deposition of P.W. No.35 Udesing Khatubhai Thakor on oath Exh. 162 Deposition of P.W. No.36 Dalsukhbhai Motibhai Pargi on oath Exh. 166 Deposition of P.W. No.37 Ramsinh Dalsangbhai Chaudhari on oath Documentary evidence: Exhibit Particulars Exh. 32 Original panchnama of counterfeit currency notes seized in this case Exh. 34 Original recovery panchnama of muddamal taken out and shown by the accused Rajubhai Rameshbhai Exh. 37 Original panchnama of the bill-book produced by the witness of this case Exh. 40 Original panchnama of counterfeit currency notes produced by the witness of this case Exh. 45 Original panchnama of signatures taken for handwriting of witnesses of this case Exh. 46 Original panchnama of specimen signatures of the accused Yogeshbhai Ramanbhai Exh. 47 to 52 Total 6 Samples of handwriting of the witness Rafiq Janmohammad Exh. 53 to 58 Total 6 Samples of handwriting of the accused Rajubhai Rameshbhai Exh. 59 to 64 Total 6 Samples of handwriting of the witness Navinbhai Chhotabhai Patel Exh. 65 to 70 Total 6 Samples of handwriting of the accused Yogeshbhai Ramanbhai Patel Exh. 73 Original complaint of the complainant Exh. 74 True copy of attendance register of December-99 Exh. 75 True copy of bank statement of S.B. Account No. 11610 of the accused Yogeshbhai Exh. 76 Counterfoil of account of Yogeshbhai Exh. 78 True copy of resolution 2 passed by the complainant bank Exh. 73 Original complaint of the complainant Exh. 74 True copy of attendance register of December-99 Exh. 75 True copy of bank statement of S.B. Account No. 11610 of the accused Yogeshbhai Exh. 76 Counterfoil of account of Yogeshbhai Exh. 78 True copy of resolution 2 passed by the complainant bank Exh. 79 to 83 List of total 5 pages showing number of currency notes given by the complainant alongwith the complaint Exh. 87 Slip of Chikhodra Service station Exh. 88 Letter of Bank of Maharashtra Exh. 95 Office copy of yadi written to Manager, Bank of Baroda, Bhadran Branch. Exh. 96 Original letter of Bank of Baroda Exh. 97 Extract of Account No. 85 of Bank of Baroda Exh. 98 Extract of bank account of Mayur Poultry farm, Siswa in Bank of Baroda Exh. 100 Office copy of yadi written to Manager, Bank of India, Napad. Exh. 101 to 102 Statement of Bank of India, Napad of the accused Yogeshbhai Ramanbhai Exh. 104 to 107 Xerox copy of total 4 pages of Bill-book of Honey Traders produced by the witness Exh. 112 Office copy of yadi written to Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vadodara. Exh. 113 Statement of Charotar Nagrik Co. Op. Credit society given to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vadodara. Exh. 114 Statement of Charotar Nagrik Co. Op. Credit society given to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vadodara. Exh. 125 Letter to District Superintendent of Police Exh. 126 Letter of PI, Anand Town written for handwriting Exh. 127 Check-list Exh. 128 to 137 Total 11 slips sent to handwriting expert for examination Exh. 138 Opinion of handwriting expert in original Exh. 139 Letter of examination of handwriting expert Exh. 141 Xerox copy of transcription of hotel register Exh. 149 True copy of attendance register of the complainant bank Exh. 150 Account statement of the accused Yogeshbhai of Charotar Pradesh Credit society Exh. 151 Office copy of forwarding letter regarding document sent to the Handwriting expert, Ahmedabad. Exh. 152 Original letter written to Anand Town Police Inspector, LCB, Anand. Exh. 153 Office copy of forwarding letter regarding document sent to the Director, Handwriting and photography, Ahmedabad. Exh. 154 Original copy regarding document received by office of Chief Handwriting Expert Exh. 155 Office copy of muddamal dispatch note Exh. 156 Original acknowledgment receipt of muddamal by FSL Exh. 157 Original forwarding letter of FSL, Ahmedabad. Exh. Exh. 153 Office copy of forwarding letter regarding document sent to the Director, Handwriting and photography, Ahmedabad. Exh. 154 Original copy regarding document received by office of Chief Handwriting Expert Exh. 155 Office copy of muddamal dispatch note Exh. 156 Original acknowledgment receipt of muddamal by FSL Exh. 157 Original forwarding letter of FSL, Ahmedabad. Exh. 158 Original FSL report and original prints regarding counterfeit currency notes 2.2 After leading the evidence in the aforesaid form, a closure pursis was given by the prosecution. But, later on, the further statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the respondents accused. But since the respondents accused claimed to be tried, the cases were put up for further adjudication by framing the issues. After considering the entire material on record and after analyzing the ocular as well as documentary evidence, the trial court by judgment and order dated 15.7.2004 was pleased to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. whereby, the benefit of doubt came to be given by restricting the order so far as the present accused are concerned with a clear clarification that this does not relate to the absconding accused and it is in this view of the matter, feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order, the present criminal appeals are filed by the State which have come up for consideration finally. 2.3 On earlier occasion, when the appeals came up for consideration finally in the month of April, 2016, a request was made to change the advocate in place of Mr. Pradip Patel and with this slight change in the proceedings about representation in the appeal, the appeals have been taken up for final hearing. 3. Mr. L.R. Poojari, learned APP representing the State has vehemently contended that a clear error of jurisdiction is reflected in passing the judgment and order by the trial court. It has also been contended by learned APP that there is ample evidence available on record which clearly indicates that in a not hurried manner the order appears to have been passed. Learned APP has further contended that looking to the narration of complaint which has been substantiated by ocular evidence but, there appears to be a clear attempt to defraud and put in motion the counterfeit notes in the process of banking. Learned APP has further contended that looking to the narration of complaint which has been substantiated by ocular evidence but, there appears to be a clear attempt to defraud and put in motion the counterfeit notes in the process of banking. This attempt is clearly attracting the basic ingredients of the offence for which they have been charged and therefore, learned APP has contended that there appears to be total lack of application of mind on the part of the trial court in evaluating the evidence on record. Learned APP has further contended that the reasons which are assigned by the trial court are not understandable and can be said to be perverse as are not in consonance with the evidence on record. Learned APP has further contended that there appears to be clear consistency in the version of ocular evidence as well as serological report and therefore, in the absence of any such inconsistency, it was not open for the trial court to discard the evidence just to grant benefit of doubt to the respondents accused. Mr. Poojari, learned APP has further contended that the attempt on the part of other co-accused to deposit the fake currency notes in the Charotar bank and when realizing that 50% notes are counterfeit, an attempt is made by accused persons to bring another correct notes of Rs. 50,000/- and thereby, this conduct on the part of respondents accused in depositing the amount is establishing the intent of the respondents accused and this is clearly visible from the record which ought not to have been overlooked by the trial court. 3.1 Mr. L.R. Poojari, learned APP has further contended that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the case against the respondents accused by leading cogent evidence and each and every material adduced by the prosecution has been examined by the trial court but, not in proper perspective which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Learned APP has further contended that this is a fit case in which the order of acquittal is required to be reversed. It is also contended that several witnesses have been examined which have supported the case of prosecution and in no unequivocal terms, the counterfeit currency notes have been established for making an attempt to deposit the same in the bank and put in circulation in marketing. It is also contended that several witnesses have been examined which have supported the case of prosecution and in no unequivocal terms, the counterfeit currency notes have been established for making an attempt to deposit the same in the bank and put in circulation in marketing. It has also been emerged from the counter-sheet of the relevant account and by indicating the deposit of Rs. 1 lac cash, learned APP has made an attempt to develop the case that prosecution has cogently proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned APP has further contended that the witnesses who have been examined have clearly supported the case of prosecution and as against that, though it was an obligatory on the part of respondents accused to dislodge the evidence led before it, no attempt is made and therefore, no doubt the responsibility is of the prosecution to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt, still the incriminating circumstance is required to be explained by the respondents accused and this is not visible from the further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, background of this fact clearly established that the offence is committed by the respondents accused and the trial court has failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. Learned APP has further contended that the reasons which are assigned and the findings which have been recorded are not such which can suggest that any comprehensive analysis is made of evidence as a whole. In fact, there appears to be a clear error on the part of the trial court which requires to be interfered with by this Court. The case has been put up for trial by the prosecution in a cogent manner. So many witnesses have been examined and from those witnesses also, it can safely be concluded that offence is established. Still, however, the trial court has passed the impugned order by giving benefit of doubt by raising inferences and surmises and this being a clear error of jurisdiction, the same deserves to be corrected by quashing and setting aside the judgment impugned in this appeal. No other submissions are made by learned APP. 4. Still, however, the trial court has passed the impugned order by giving benefit of doubt by raising inferences and surmises and this being a clear error of jurisdiction, the same deserves to be corrected by quashing and setting aside the judgment impugned in this appeal. No other submissions are made by learned APP. 4. To oppose the stand taken by learned APP, learned counsel appearing for the respondents accused have vehemently contended that there appears to be no irregularity of any nature seen in coming to the conclusion for giving benefit of doubt. It is also not clearly established by prosecution which can lead to a circumstance to complete the chain of entire transaction. On the contrary, making an attempt to deposit the genuine currency notes would clearly indicates that there was no motive on the part of respondents accused to commit an offence. Learned counsel representing the respondents accused have cogently submitted that there are serious lapses retained by the prosecution in the case. Learned counsel also contended that the bank manager himself was not examined as well as one Navinbhai Chhotabhai, a most relevant witness has also not been examined in the case and the trial court has rightly observed that the complaint came to be filed after a period of 11 days. These are the circumstances which are clearly suggesting that case has not been proved beyond the reasonable doubt. It has also been found from the record, as contended by learned counsel, that moneys have not been seized and on the contrary, credited in the account and consequently, permitted to withdraw the same and therefore, had there been any such visible commission of crime, these steps might not have been taken by the officials of the bank and therefore, there appears to be a clear error of roping the respondents accused in commission of crime. Learned counsel have further contended specifically that the trial court while passing an order in favour of respondents accused have not only considered the conduct of the respondents accused but, has also appreciated that though Yogesh Patel was called personally by the bank manager and another witnesses Anilkumar had called Navinbhai Chhotabhai Kachiya, are the circumstances which are from suspicious more particularly when in the background of the fact that this bank manager is not put to examination by the prosecution, though very relevant. It has also been contended that testimony of these witnesses have instead of prove has created a reasonable suspicion in the case of prosecution. From the deposition of PW-11 - Anilkumar Ashabhai Patel, who is examined at Exh. 77, it clearly transpires that said witness has denied the fact that witness Harishbhai Patel has come in the chamber of manager. This witness has categorically denied any conversation which has taken place between Yogesh Patel and the manager in the cabin. On the contrary, this witness who happened to be with Harishchandra is not in a position to know Yogesh Patel, who was called and therefore, on analysis of the testimony of this witness, the trial court found a clear contrast between the witnesses. Over and above that, there are several circumstances on the basis of which a serious suspicion can take place is that though one of the witnesses went to the police station prior to Uttarayan, still, it has not happened that police has come to the bank. It has also been observed by the trial court from the evidence as contended by learned counsel representing the respondents accused that PW-11 - Anilkumar Patel appears to have opened the bundles of the fake currency but then, PW-13 and PW-14 have not seen the bundles being opened and straightway, deposited in the bank. There is no information coming out exactly, who opened up the bundles, who dealt with the said packets of bundles in which currency notes were reflecting and most material aspect which has been considered, as contended by learned counsel, that from 31.12.1999 till 11.1.2000 whether these notes were in custody of whom is not established. Even a complaint has also not been proved during the course of adjudication of trial. A list is pared by whom of those fake currency notes and prepared in whose presence whether of accused or witnesses, is also not coming out and therefore, entire list which is said to have been prepared on 31.12.1999 appears to be not established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and therefore, learned counsel representing the respondents accused have contended that there is a serious lapse on the part of investigating machinery which has led the case in its futility. 4.1 Learned counsel representing the respondents accused have further contended that the trial court has evaluated the evidence of PW-11, PW-13 and PW-14 and so on. 4.1 Learned counsel representing the respondents accused have further contended that the trial court has evaluated the evidence of PW-11, PW-13 and PW-14 and so on. But none of the witnesses have proved the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt which has ultimately resulted into a serious doubt about the prosecution and this being the position, it is hardly believable to rely upon the case of prosecution and therefore, rightly held not to be proved as found by the trial court. Learned counsel further submitted that looking to the reasons assigned by the trial court and looking to the material on record, it clearly transpires that there is no error committed by the trial court and the judgment and order impugned is based upon cogent and sound reasons which requires no interference at the stage of appellate jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submitted that the view taken by the trial court appears to be sound and plausible view which does not require to be interfered with. There appears to be no perversity, no legal infirmity from the bare reading of the judgment and order and therefore, the same is requiring no interference and ultimately, requested the Court to dismiss both the appeals filed by the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel representing the respective sides, having gone through the materials on record and the reasons and in comprehensive analysis of the evidence as a whole, the conclusion in brief which are arrived at by the trial court worth to be taken note of for examining whether any error of crept in or not and therefore, in course of such exercise, the Court finds following circumstances which are not to be ignored. 5.1 It is reflecting from the record that testimony of witnesses is revealing that bank manager has called accused No. 1 - Yogesh Patel and another PW-11 and PW-13. This has raised the suspicion and surprising the bank manager-Rashmibhai, in whose presence accused No. 1 was called out, has not been examined at all. In addition thereto, the trial court from the analysis of evidence has also found that though all persons, namely, Vyomeshbhai, Harishchandra Bhailalbhai and Rashimibhai were inside the chamber along with other co-accused, it is surprisingly found that Harishchandra is not knowing accused No. 1 - Yogesh Patel nor has said that he has not seen Yogesh Patel and regarding this contradiction, there appears no explanation. 5.2 From further analysis of evidence, it appears that even if it is to be accepted that witnesses Harishchandra and Anilbhai have opened up the bundles then also, from the testimony of PW-14 - Rafikjan Mohmad, some unknown person had handed over packet consisting of currency notes bundles, he has not seen that those bundles have been opened up and straightway, presented in the bank. There is no evidence worth the name as to who opened up the bundles; when it has been broken up to check whether it is proper or not, such evidence is not led by the prosecution which has again raised a suspicion. It has further been culled out from the evidence that no evidence is also visible that currency notes from 31.12.1999 to 11.1.2000 was whether in safe custody or not and therefore, there are all probabilities of tampering with the same. The list which has said to have been prepared about those fake currency notes, the same is not established that same is prepared on 31.12.1999 which has again raised suspicion in the case of prosecution. The evidence as a whole is also reflecting one disturbing feature is that proper sealing has also not undertaken of those counterfeit notes nor the panchas have supported the said sealing process and therefore, it has been rightly found by the trial court that the case has not been proved on the yardstick on which it is to be proved by the prosecution. From the testimony of Yogesh Ramanbhai Shukla and Ramanbhai Ramabhai and the bank manager Rashmibhai, it has not been found so cogently whether the accused persons were in conscious possession of those fake currency notes and therefore, the trial court found from the evidence of these witnesses that prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt about conscious possession of those currency notes from the accused. Even in the bank slip also which is maintained for the purpose of deposit of money, there is no signature of accused No. 1 - Yogesh Patel. On the contrary, the slip which has been of Chikhodara Service Station in which the signature of Rajubhi Rameshbhai Patel is found and therefore, there are serious discrepancies in the evidence which does to show that prosecution has not been able to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, the slip which has been of Chikhodara Service Station in which the signature of Rajubhi Rameshbhai Patel is found and therefore, there are serious discrepancies in the evidence which does to show that prosecution has not been able to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. 5.3 One another surprising feature which has been emerged from the evidence is that in the bank, the notes which are going out and coming inside in the bank, a proper account is being maintained. Now, from the testimony of PW-11 - Anilkumar Ashabhai Patel, an admission has come out that no such nondh is reflecting in the cash record of 4.1.2000 about this Rs. 50,000/- from Charotar Pradesh Credit Society and therefore, after examining the account-sheet at Exh. 75, it has been found that there is no entry with respect to credit of the said amount on 4.1.2000. 5.4 From the evidence it has further emerged that though the incident in question is of 31.12.1999, there is no explanation worth the name about the delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint and therefore, when some of the panchas have turned hostile, a proper care could have been taken by the prosecution to establish the case more vigilantly. In addition thereto, it has also been found that regarding those currency notes, even seizure memo has also not been prepared nor any signature either of the accused or panch witnesses is taken and no seal packing process has been undertaken with respect to those notes and there is again no explanation by the bank that for a pretty long period of 11 days, with whom the notes were lying. No earmarking was also made on those notes which are stated to be fake and therefore, in the absence of any seizure memo, in the absence of any earmarking and in the absence of any safe custody of those fake currency notes, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt which appears to have rightly been concluded by the trial court. There appears to be no intention reflecting on the part of respondents accused to put in motion these fake currency notes. Had there been so, further deposit of Rs. There appears to be no intention reflecting on the part of respondents accused to put in motion these fake currency notes. Had there been so, further deposit of Rs. 50,000/- is a conduct which has been appreciated by the trial court on the basis of evaluation of evidence and therefore, considering the provision of Section 4 of the Evidence Act, the trial court has come to the conclusion that there is no intention of the respondents accused and the entire case appears to have been not proved beyond reasonable doubt which has raised a clear suspicious circumstance against the prosecution and therefore, after analyzing the entire evidence in the aforesaid manner, the judgment and order came to be passed on 15.7.2004 and similar is the conclusion with respect to Sessions Case No. 131 of 2000 related to Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2006. 6. Therefore, on the basis of such materials on record, the view which has been taken by the trial court appears to be plausible and no other contrary view cogent enough is emerging which can permit us to substitute our finding in place of the trial court and accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court has examined all the evidences on record, has minutely analyzed the same and arrived at a particular finding by passing impugned judgment and order. There appears to be no legal infirmity, no illegality nor any perversity which can be said to be resulting into miscarriage of justice and therefore, considering this overall set of circumstance, no case is made out by the State to permit us to dislodge the finding arrived at by the trial court. 7. While coming to this conclusion, we are mindful of the fact that appellate jurisdiction is no doubt sufficient enough to permit us to reassess and reanalyze the entire evidence to arrive at a different conclusion. However, looking to the settled proposition of law propounded on exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an order of acquittal if only one view is possible then only, interference is called for. Here, we are of the considered opinion that no other solitary view is possible contrary to what has been taken by the trial court. The following propositions laid down by the decisions delivered by the Apex Court which we worth to take note of and reproduce hereinafter. Here, we are of the considered opinion that no other solitary view is possible contrary to what has been taken by the trial court. The following propositions laid down by the decisions delivered by the Apex Court which we worth to take note of and reproduce hereinafter. 7.1 In the decision delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Sureshkumar v. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 353 , it was observed that if two views are possible, the High Court should hold in favour of the accused and should not interfere with an order of acquittal. The relevant observations of the decision are reflected in Para.55, 56 and 57 which read as under : "55. The second contention is that the High Court ought not to have interfered in the acquittal by the Trial Court. It was submitted that if two views are possible, the High Court should lean in favour of the accused and should not interfere with an acquittal. 56. A few years ago, the law on the subject was culled out from a large number of decisions and summed up in Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1318 : 2008 AIR SCW 6598) as follows: "1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. 2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. The present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order, dated 9.5.2006, passed in Sessions Case Nos. 299/2003, 310/2003 and 12/2004, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Ahmedabad City, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith once. The present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order, dated 9.5.2006, passed in Sessions Case Nos. 299/2003, 310/2003 and 12/2004, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Ahmedabad City, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith once. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when: i. The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; ii. The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii. The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice"; iv. The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v. The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi. The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. vii. This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive." 57. Learned counsel for Suresh Kumar referred to S. Anil Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 7 SCC 219 : (2013 AIR SCW 6180) particularly paragraph 14 of the Report wherein reliance was placed on Rohtash v. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 : ( AIR 2012 SC 2297 : 2012 AIR SCW 3318) to conclude that it is "only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and where the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, can the High Court interfere with the order of acquittal." In Rohtash it was further observed: "The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Talevar, (2011) 11 SCC 666 : ( AIR 2011 SC 2271 : 2011 AIR SCW 3889) Govindaraju v. State (2012) 4 SCC 722 : ( AIR 2012 SC 1292 : 2012 AIR SCW 1994)." 7.2 In yet another decision in the case of Ramaiah @ Rama v. State of Karnataka, 2014(9) SCC 365 , it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced and the one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it should not be disturbed as observed in paragraph Nos. 30 and 31. 7.3 In the case of Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa, 2015(5) Scale 634 , it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that when there are two views culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. Paragraph No. 10 of the said decision reads thus: "10. Taking the First question for consideration, we are of the view that in case there are two views which can be culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. It has been recognized as a human right by this Court. In Narendra Singh and another v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 : ( AIR 2004 SC 3249 ), this Court has recognized presumption of innocence as a human right and has gone on to say that: "30. It is now well settled that benefit of doubt belonged to the accused. It is further trite that suspicion, however grave may be, cannot take place of a proof. It is equally well settled that there is a long distance between 'may be' and 'must be'. 31. It is also well known that even in a case where a plea of alibi is raised, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. Presumption of innocence is a human right. Such presumption gets stronger when a judgment of acquittal is passed. 31. It is also well known that even in a case where a plea of alibi is raised, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. Presumption of innocence is a human right. Such presumption gets stronger when a judgment of acquittal is passed. This Court in a number of decisions has set out the legal principle for reversing the judgment of acquittal by a Higher Court (see Dhanna v. State of M.P., Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana and Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.) which had not been adhered to by the High Court. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 33. We, thus, having regard to the post-mortem report, are of the opinion that the cause of death of Bimla Bai although is shrouded in mystery but benefit thereof must go to the appellants as in the event of there being two possible views, the one supporting the accused should be upheld." 7.4 The decision taken by the Apex Court in the case of V. Sejappa v. State, reported in 2016 AIR (SC) 2045, wherein the apex Court in paragraph No. 21 observed thus: "21. If the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal if another view is possible. Merely because the appellate court on re- appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. In State through Inspector of Police, A.P. v. K. Narasimhachary (2005) 8 SCC 364 , this Court reiterated the well settled principle that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the acquittal by the lower court and that only where the material on record leads to an inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused, the judgment of acquittal will call for interference by the appellate court. The same view was reiterated in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401 ." 8. The same view was reiterated in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401 ." 8. From the aforesaid set of circumstances and from our comprehensive analysis of entire evidence in co-relation with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the aforesaid principle propounded on exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an order of acquittal, we are unable to exercise jurisdiction and we deem it proper not to interfere with the order passed by the trial court and accordingly, the State's appeals having no merit, deserve to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed. The judgment and order, dated 15.7.2004, passed in Sessions Case Nos. 130 and 131 of 2000, by the learned Joint District Judge, Fast Track Court, Anand is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.