The court affirmed that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which was established through credible witness accounts and corroborating documentary evidence.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Ms. D'Souza, learned Appointed Advocate for the Applicants and Ms. Tidke, learned APP for the State.

2. The present Criminal Revision Application takes exception to the twin judgments of the learned Trial Court and the learned Appeal Court convicting and sentencing the Revision Applicant - Original Accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him along with the Original Accused No.2 to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default to undergo R.I. for one month.

3. The facts in the present case are narrow, but relevant. Revision Applicant- Jayesh Natwarlal Shah along with his partner in crime viz. Nawaz Samsuddin Pathan, were charge-sheeted as Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. 34 of IPC . Both accused Nos.1 and 2 prior from 13 June, 1994 started a partnership firm called Vishakha Investments & Financiers by publishing newspaper advertisements in Gujarati Newspaper called as 'Gujarat Samachar' and Marathi Newpaper 'Deshdoot' in the name and style of Vishakha Investments & Financiers, calling upon the public at large to deposit advance money in their firm so that the firm can advance loans at the reasonable rate of return by interest. Insofar as the present Complainant is concerned, he approached the accused some time on 20 January, 1995 and expressed his desire to avail a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- He was called upon to deposit an amount of Rs.35,000/- as advance amount to process his loan. He deposited an amount of Rs.35,000/- and issued receipt dated 20 January, 1995, which was in the name of Vishakha Investments. When the Complainant went to the office of Vishakha Investments in February, 1995 for inquiring about his loan amount, he found that the accused had shut their firm and the said office premises was occupied by some third party. The First Informant-Complainant then filed a complaint with the V.P. Road Police Station on 22 February, 1995.

4. Prosecution led the evidence of three witnesses viz. PW-1- the First Informant- Complainant, who was duped for Rs.35,000/- and PW-2 one Mr. Jayesh Ulhani, who was similarly duped by the accused like the Complainant for depositing several amounts. In fact, insofar as PW-2 is concerned, he has made multiple investments with the accused i.e. with the Accused's Firm - Vishakha Investments and he was issued three separate sets of receipts by Vishakha Investments along with a declaration and an agreement. PW-3 is the Investigating Officer. The evidence of PW-1 pertained to the transaction in question for Rs.35,000/- but the evidence of PW-2 was in much detail highlighting the role of accused by inducing him to investment money in Vishakha Investments, but without giving him any returns. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the above facts and the investigation done by the prosecution, answered the case of the prosecution in the affirmative and held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, holding the accused having committed offence under Section 420 r/w. 34 IPC .

5. When the reasons given by the learned Trial Court in paragraph 6 onwards are perused, it is seen that evidence of the twin prosecution witnesses viz. PW-1 and PW-2 has been accepted by the learned Trial Court in indicting and convicting the accused. The fact of accused having received the amount from PW-1 and PW-2 as delineated in the prosecution case has not been denied by him. Neither the receipts issued by the accused (Revision Applicants) in the name of Vishakha Investments are not denied and all receipts are produced in evidence. The evidence of PW-2 Mr. Jayesh Ulhani has been accepted by the learned Trial Court, inter alia, on the basis of the receipts issued by accused on behalf of the Vishakha Investments & Financiers as also the multiple documents relating to loan proposals which were all taken on record and marked as Exhibits P-1 t