SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
B.N. KARIA, J.
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
AFROZ MOHMED HASANFATTA – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 536 of 2021, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2022
Decided On : 24-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : MITESH AMIN, HARDIK SONI, SHALIN MEHTA, MANAN SHAH.
For the Respondents: VIKRAM CHAUDHARY, CHETAN K. PANDYA.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION - DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED - SUFFICIENCY OF GROUNDS FOR PROCEEDING - WEIGHING OF EVIDENCE - SCOPE OF INQUIRY - SECTION 227 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant-State challenged the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 181 of 2017 below Exh.56 dated 16.04.2021 by discharging the respondent herein from the charges levelled against him.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Trial Court has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gave rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 Cr.P.C. the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has no consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

Issues: 1. Whether the Trial Court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out? 2. Whether the Trial Court can discharge the accused if the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the Trial Court has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. 2. Yes, the Trial Court can discharge the accused if the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application filed by the applicant-State and upheld the order passed by the Trial Court discharging the respondent from the charges levelled against him.

JUDGMENT :

B.N. KARIA, J.

Criminal Revision Application No. 536 of 2021

1. The present applicant-State of Gujarat, by preferring this Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.” for short), has challenged the order dated 16.04.2021 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 181 of 2017 below Exh.56 by discharging the respondent herein from the charges levelled against him.

2. The short facts of the present case may be referred as under:

    2.1 The complaint was filed at DCB Police Station, Surat which was registered as FIR No. C.R. No. 16/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 497, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC” for short). As per the case of the prosecution, the respondent had committed the fraud by developing the bogus and fraudulent transactions worth of Rs. 104,60,99,082/-. The said forged bill was produced in the bank and the respondent has committed scam of huge amount as referred above to Dubai and Hongkong. As per the case of the prosecution, the respondent is a main conspirator who floated the bogus company by appointing the several persons as a Director and within short span of time, the huge financial fraud was committed. After detailed investigation, charge-sheet was filed against two persons viz. (i) Sunil Agrawal and (ii) Ratan Agrawal on 1808.2014. The names of Madanlal Jain and Afroz Fatta were shown as suspect. Thereafter, on 20.08.2014, the respondent was arrested in the said FIR being No. 16/2014 by the police officers of DCB Police Station, Surat. Thereafter, statement of Jatin Dilipkumar Shah, Manager of P. Umeshchandra and Company, statement of Ashwinbhai Haribhai Patel, Manager of P. Umeshchandra and Company, statement of Kalidas Natverlal Patel, Branch Manager in S. Babulal and Company, statement of Urvish Dililpbhi Shah, Partner of P. Umeshchandra and Company as well as statement of Harshad Maganlal Modi, cheque discounter, were recorded. On 30.09.2014, first supplementary chargeshet was filed against Madanlal Jain and the respondent and Bilal Galani were shown as suspect. The statements of other persons viz. Amrutbhai Navratanial Patel, Jafar Mohmad Hasanfatta, elder brother of the respondent, Samir Jiker Godil, were recorded by the Investigating Agencys and second supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the present respondent and Bilal Galani. Thereafter, on 15.11.2014, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat took cognizance of charge-sheet filed against the respondent and criminal case was registered. On 24.12.2014, the bail application preferred by the respondent was rejected by the learned Sessions Court at Surat. The respondent herein approached this Court with a prayer to grant to release him on regular bail in connection with the FIR being I-C.R. No. 16 of 2014 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2191 of 2015 and he was granted regular bail on 05.03.2015. The respondent herein also filed one Criminal Revision Application No. 264 of 2017 before this Court on 20.03.2017 against the order taking cognizance by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Surat. The said Criminal Revision Application No. 264 of 2017 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2017 and the respondent was discharged by quashing and setting aside the order of cognizance. Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2019 was preferred by the State of Gujarat against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.05.2017 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 264 of 2017 which was allowed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 05.02.2019. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the Trial Court should proceed further in accordance with law. Thereafter, on 18.02.2020, third supplementary charge-sheet was filed against Prafful Patel. The respondent herein filed an application below Exh.56 i

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                Judicial Analysis

                AI

                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top