Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Hiralal Babulal Soni – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 579-580 of 2012
WITH
Nandkumar Babulal Soni – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 581-583 of 2012
WITH
Vijaya Bank and Another – Appellants
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 584 of 2012
Decided On : 25-02-2025
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) read with Sections 403, 409, 411, 420, 471, 477A and 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 119] – Cheating, forgery and receipt of stolen property by Bank employee – Conviction and sentence – However, strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – In order to bring home charge under Section 411 of IPC, it is duty of prosecution to prove that stolen property was in possession of accused and some persons other than accused had possession of the property before accused got possession of it and that accused had knowledge that property was stolen property – Once courts below have found that seized gold bars are not the same gold bars, conviction under Sections 120B and 411 of IPC cannot be sustained – Due to delay of four years in recovery of property very basis of its identification is found shattered and possibility of mistaken identification cannot be ruled out – With this finding of Trial Court, invocation of Section 114 of Evidence Act is not at all permissible since prosecution has failed to discharge its initial burden – Weakness in defence or appellant’s failure to substantiate the fact while answering question in his accused statement cannot become strength of prosecution – Prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by positively completing chain of circumstances against appellant, which prosecution has utterly failed in present case – Conviction and sentence under Sections 120B and 411 of IPC set aside. (Paras 25, 29, 30, 32, 37 and 38)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 109] – Burder of proof of fact – Under Section 106 of Evidence Act if certain facts are established, a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding existence of certain other facts which are within special knowledge of accused. (Para 36)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court framed charges against accused persons for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 403, 409, 411, 420, 471, 477A and 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. High Court under impugned judgment has allowed Criminal Appeal preferred by accused nos. 1 and 2 and their conviction and sentence has been set aside – Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 2006 preferred by accused no. 3 (Nandkumar Babulal Soni) was dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2009 (converted from Criminal Application No. 463 of 2007) preferred by Hiralal Babulal Soni was also dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2006 preferred by CBI challenging Trial Court’s direction to return 205 gold bars to accused no. 3 (Nandkumar Babulal Soni) has been allowed and direction is quashed and set aside by High Court. Property stood confiscated and placed at disposal of State Government.
Findings of Court:
Criminal Appeal Nos. 581-583 of 2012 preferred by the appellant-Nandkumar Babulal Soni are allowed. His conviction and sentence under Sections 120B and 411 of the IPC is set aside. Since the seized gold bars were recovered from the appellant-Nandkumar Babulal Soni, he is entitled to the possession thereof. Therefore, we direct that the seized gold bars- 205 in number (Article 2) be handed over to the appellant- Nandkumar Babulal Soni.
Result : Criminal Appeals allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by positively establishing a chain of circumstances. Weaknesses in the defense or the accused's failure to substantiate facts cannot be used as strengths for the prosecution (!) .
Strong suspicion alone cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence must be conclusive and exclude all other hypotheses of innocence (!) .
In cases involving possession of stolen property, the prosecution must establish that the property was in possession of the accused, that it was previously in the possession of others, and that the accused had knowledge of its stolen nature (!) .
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act allows the court to infer certain facts within the knowledge of the accused if established by the prosecution. However, failure by the accused to provide a proper explanation can be used against them (!) (!) .
The identification of property as stolen requires clear proof that the property in possession is the same as that which was stolen or sold through fraudulent means. Delay in recovery and identification issues can weaken the case and increase the possibility of mistaken identity (!) (!) .
When the evidence does not conclusively prove that the property is the same as that sold by a certain firm, and the chain of circumstances is incomplete, the court cannot draw a conclusive inference of guilt. In such cases, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused (!) (!) .
Resistance to police during search and seizure can be considered an adverse factor, but it alone does not establish guilt. The primary focus remains on whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (!) .
The failure of witnesses to fully support the prosecution's case, especially regarding the identity and origin of the property, can undermine the evidence and lead to acquittal or reversal of conviction (!) (!) .
The invocation of certain legal presumptions or inferences (such as those under Section 114 or 114(a) of the Evidence Act) depends on the strength and completeness of the evidence establishing the chain of circumstances. When the prosecution fails to meet this standard, such presumptions cannot be legally invoked (!) .
Ultimately, if the evidence fails to establish the identity of the property as stolen or the accused’s knowledge of its stolen nature, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and their conviction should be set aside. Similarly, the return of seized property depends on whether its identity as stolen property has been conclusively proved (!) (!) .
Orders regarding the return of property are contingent upon the proof of its stolen nature; if not established, the property should be returned to the rightful owner or the person from whom it was seized (!) .
The courts emphasize that suspicion cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt and that the entire chain of evidence must be complete and convincing to sustain a conviction (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. These criminal appeals are disposed of by this common order as they are directed against the common judgment and order dated 16.07.2009 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereunder the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant/Hiralal Babulal Soni (Criminal Appeal Nos. 579-580/2012) and the appeal of the appellant/accused No. 3 namely, Nandkumar Babulal Soni, (Criminal Appeal No. 581-583/2012) whereas the appeals of Mr. S.K. Sheenappa Rai (accused no. 1), Devdas Shetty (accused no. 2) and Vijaya Bank were allowed. We shall later notice the conviction and sentence awarded by the courts below.
2. The offence pertains to commission of fraud by remittance through fake Telegraphic Transfers1 [“TT”] and subsequent withdrawals to the tune of Rs. 6,70,00,000/- at Vijaya Bank, Nasik Branch, Maharashtra.
2.1 On 30.01.1997, one person disclosing as a representative of M/s. Globe International, a proprietary concern, approached the bank for opening an account which was not immediately accepted by the accused no. 1 (S.K. Sheenappa Rai), Branch Manager as he wanted to verify the documents as there was difference in signatures. However, since one Surendera Bhandary, Assistant General Manager, Vijaya Bank, Fort Branch, Bombay confirmed the letter of introduction issued by him, the personal presence of the proposed account holder was dispensed with, and the account was opened.
2.2 It is the case of the prosecution that the documents submitted at the time of account opening were forged and the person representing the firm namely, Surendra Jain or the firm Globe International were fictitious. The account was eventually opened on 06.02.1997. On 25.04.1997, Nasik Branch received TT of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the account of Globe International and thereafter till 28.07.1997, 11 TTs were sent from Delhi issued by Vijaya Bank, Ansari Road Branch, New Delhi. On 06.08.1997, Vijaya Bank, Nasik Branch received TT of Rs. 4,00,000/- which was credited to the account of Globe International. Thus, total amount of Rs. 6,70,00,000/- was credited in this account. Simultaneously, with the credit of TT amount, the same was withdrawn and subsequently, the TTs were found to be bogus and forged and the entire fraud was committed not only by accused nos. 1 and 2 but was done with the help of absconding and unknown persons like Mukesh Shah @ Mayur Desai or Ashok Agarwal @ Surender Jain and so on. On 12.08.1997, it was found that no payment of the said TTs was ever made at Vijaya Bank, Ansari Road Branch, Delhi. On this date, accused no. 1 informed Vijaya Bank, Fort Branch, Bombay about the fraud and the payments against 19 demand drafts for a total amount of Rs. 1,61,44,000/- were stopped.
3. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the owner of Jewellary firms i.e. M/s. Chenaji Narsinghji2 [‘M/s. CN’] and M/s. V.P. Jewellers and thereafter filed the chargesheet against accused nos. 1 and 2 by mentioning that further investigation is going on. Later, Central Bureau of Investigation3 [‘CBI’] found that most of the DDs were issued in favour of M/s. CN against the purchase of gold bars and the delivery of those gold bars were given to accused no. 3 or through him to Mayur Desai @ Mukesh Shah. CBI found link between absconding accused Mukesh Shah and accused no. 3 to whom gold bars were delivered from M/s. CN. On 01.06.2001, a search was carried out at the shop of accused no. 3 effecting seizure of 205 gold bars and other documents. Thus, chargesheet was filed against accused no. 1 (S.K. Sheenappa Rai), accused no. 2 (M. Devdas Shetty), accused no. 3 (Nandkumar Babulal Soni) whereas accused no. 4 (Mayur Desai @ Mukesh Shah @ M.P. Jain @ Mukesh Jain) could not be traced and declared proclaimed offender by the Trial Court on 12.02.2002.
4. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 403, 409, 411, 420, 471, 477A and 109 of the In
(1) Cheating and forgery – Weakness in defence or failure of accused to substantiate the fact while answering question in his accused statement cannot become strength of prosecution – Prosecution has....
Knowledge of stolen property is essential for conviction under Section 411 IPC; mere possession is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the accused's possession of stolen cash beyond reasonable doubt to establish the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C....
Possession of stolen articles – Key ingredient for a crime is mens rea – To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, "believe" factor of the person is of stellar import.
Circumstantial evidence murder conviction cannot rest on solitary unproven recovery of stolen property without complete chain; accused's probable explanation on preponderance of probability entitles ....
Hearsay admission under S.108 requires corroboration to prove smuggled gold; absent foreign markings or evidence, confiscation unsustainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
