Back
1973 Supreme(SC) 440
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. Alagiriswami, I.D. Dua, C. A. Vaidialingam, JJ.
Mustaq Ahmed Mohmad Hussain and Anr. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 9 of 1973
Decided On : 13-04-1973
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 410, 418, 421 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 474, 467, 468, 511, 420, 34 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Forged railway receipts – Whether prosecution has proved that on or about 7-8-71 at Jamnagar accused No. 1 Mustaq Ahmed Mohmed Hussein and accused No. 2 Mukhtar Hussein Ali Hussein Sayed in furtherance of common intention of both to cheat the Indian Railway by using forged railway receipts actually forged three railway receipts mark 6/A, 61B and 6/C purporting to be valuable security and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 467 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code – Whether prosecution has proved that on or before 7-8-71 said accused Nos. I and 2 in furtherance of common intention of both cheat Indian Railway forged railway receipts mark 61A, 6/B and 6/C intending that they shall be used for purpose of cheating then thereby committed offence punishable under section 468 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code – Whether prosecution has proved that said accused Nos. 1 and 2 on or about 7-8-71 in furtherance of common intention of both to cheat Indian Railway fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine three railway receipts marked 6/A, 6/B and 6/C which they knew or had reason to believe at time they used them to be forged documents and thereby committed offence under section 471 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code – Whether prosecution has proved that on or about 7-8-71 both said accused Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession of forged railway receipts purporting to be valuable security knowing same to be forged and intending that same shall be fraudulently used as genuine documents and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 474 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code – Whether prosecution has proved that on or about 7-8-71 accused Nos.1 and 2 were at Jamnagar and in furtherance of common intention of both of them to cheat Indian Railway attempted to cheat Western Railway by dishonestly inducing the railway employees, i.e., goods clerk at Jamnagar railway station to deliever them Coal Wagons in question and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 34 and section 511 of Indian Penal Code – Held, Offences under sections 467 and 468, I. P. C. were held not proved, there being no reliable evidence on those points. – Again, on actual fraudulent or dishonest use of forged documents also trial court felt that prosecution evidence fell short of main ingredients and only an attempt had been made by accused persons to use forged documents with result that they were acquitted of charge under section 471, Indian Penal Code. – Trial court also seems to have taken into account suspicious conduct of appellants in coming to conclusion about their guilt under section 420, Indian Penal Code read with sections 415/34, Indian Penal Code and under sections 474/34, Indian Penal Code. – This discussion clearly shows that appellants were not unjustified in claiming to have evidence on record re-examined by High Court for coming to its own conclusions, of course, after considering views of trial court and giving due weight to that courts reasoning and conclusion. – Recording of reasons by High Court for its conclusion on all relevant aspects was thus necessary because even trial court had not completely and unreservedly accepted evidence let by prosecution and the charges pressed against appellants. – Points raised as disclosed in petition of appeal could by no means be said to be unarguable. – Without expressing any opinion on merits of case, court is constrained to allow this appeal and send case back to High Court for a fresh decision in light of the observations made above. – Had High Court recorded its reasons in support of order dismissing appeal perhaps this remand could have been avoided and appellants saved the further delay in final disposal of their appeal by High Court. – Appeal Allowed
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case:
- The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by special leave (Cri. Appeal No. 9 of 1973) against a summary dismissal of an appeal by the High Court of Gujarat (!) (!) (!) .
- The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, for offences under Sections 420, 474, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to cheating the Indian Railway using forged receipts (!) (!) .
- The High Court had dismissed the appeal in limine with a single word "dismissed" without providing any reasons or indicating whether it endorsed the trial court's reasoning (!) (!) .
- The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in summarily dismissing the appeal without recording reasons, as the case raised arguable points of fact and law (!) (!) (!) .
- Under Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code, while an appellate court can dismiss an appeal summarily, it must do so only after a proper scrutiny of the petition and the impugned judgment, and it is bound to record reasons for such dismissal (!) (!) .
- The Court emphasized that in cases raising arguable points, the High Court is expected to make speaking orders indicating its reasons, however concise, to ensure the proper functioning of the judicial process (!) (!) .
- The Supreme Court cited several precedents (e.g., Mushtak Hussein v. State of Bombay, Bhagat Singh v. State of Rajasthan) establishing that dismissing appeals in limine without reasons in arguable cases is improper and may lead to failure of justice (!) (!) (!) .
- The trial court had acquitted the appellants on some charges (Sections 467, 468, 471) due to lack of reliable evidence but convicted them on others (Sections 420, 474), showing that the evidence was not unreservedly accepted and required re-examination (!) (!) (!) .
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision, recording reasons for its conclusion on all relevant aspects, noting that this could have avoided the delay caused by the summary dismissal (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Dua J.
In this appeal by special leave the short question requiring determination is whether the High Court of Gujarat was justified in dismissing in limine with one word "dismissed" the appellants' appeal against their conviction by the Sessions Judge, Jamnagar for offences under Section 420 read with sections 511 and 34, I. P. C. and under Section 474 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code.
2. Both the appellants were charged on five counts in the court of the Sessions Judge relating to offences inter alia, of forging railway receipts purporting to be valuable security, being in possession of forged receipts knowing them to be forged and of dishonestly or fraudulently using the forged receipts as genuine knowing them to be forged, in furtherance of the common intention of cheating the Indian Railways or attempting to cheat them.
3. The points which arose for determination in the trial court as stated in its judgment were :
"(1) Whether the prosecution has proved that on or about 7-8-71 at Jamnagar accused No. 1 Mustaq Ahmed Mohmed Hussein and accused No. 2 Mukhtar Hussein Ali Hussein Sayed in furtherance of common intention of both to cheat the Indian Railway by using forged railway receipts actually forged three railway receipts mark 6/A, 61B and 6/C purporting to be valuable security and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 467 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code ?
(2) Whether the prosecution has proved that on or before 7-8-71 said accused Nos. I and 2 in furtherance of the common intention of both the cheat Indian Railway forged railway receipts mark 61A, 6/B and 6/C intending that they shall be used for the purpose of cheating then thereby committed the offence punishable under section 468 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ?
(3) Whether the prosecution has proved that said accused Nos. 1 and 2 on or about 7-8-71 in furtherance of common intention of both to cheat Indian Railway fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine the three railway receipts marked 6/A, 6/B and 6/C which they knew or had reason to believe at the time they used them to be the forged documents and thereby committed the offence under section 471 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code ?
(4) Whether the prosecution has proved that on or about 7-8-71 both the said accused Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession of the forged railway receipts purporting to be valuable security knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall be fraudulently used as genuine documents and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 474 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code ?
(5) Whether the prosecution has proved that on or about 7-8-71 accused Nos.1 and 2 were at Jamnagar and in furtherance of common intention of both of them to cheat Indian Railway attempted to cheat Western Railway by dishonestly inducing the railway employees, i.e., the goods clerk at Jamnagar railway station to deliever them Coal Wagons in question and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 34 and section 511 of the Indian Penal Code ?"
On points Nos. 1 to 3 the decision of the trial court went in favour of the appellants and against the prosecution but on points Nos. 4 and 5 the appellants were held guilty and convicted. They were sentenced under section 420 read with sections 511 and 34, Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with further rigorous imprisonment for nine months in case of default in payment of fine. A similar sentence was imposed on each one of them for the offence under sections 474/34, Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It appears from the judgment of the trial court which covers about forty pages of exhaustive discussion on the points raised that a large number of witnesses were examined at the trial and the court entertained considerable doubt with respect to the prosecution story on several aspects of the v
