CR.RA/507/1998 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.507 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM N. MEHTA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Petitioner Versus SURENDRABHAI @ S P PANCHABHAI PATEL & ORS. - Respondents ========================================================= Appearance : MR KC SHAH, APP For Petitioner. NONE - RULE SERVED for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, 8 to 10 & 11. MR AM PAREKH for Respondent Nos.5 to 7. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BANKIM N. MEHTA Date : 03/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By filing this Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the CR.RA/507/1998 2/7 JUDGMENT petitioner-State has challenged the common order dated 10.07.1998 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Court No.2, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, below applications, Exhibits 2, 4, 9, 13 and 14, in Sessions Case No.31 of 1998, discharging the respondents herein. 2. One Mr.Dilipkumar Shantilal Jhaveri, a Cashier of Bank of Baroda, Kalupur Branch, Ahmedabad, lodged a complaint before Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Section 489-B of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was registered as I-C.R.No.410 of 1994 on 14.12.1994 and the investigation was started. At the end of investigation, the charge- sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offence in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and it was registered as Sessions Case No.31 of 1998. The respondents gave applications for discharge under Section 227 of the Code in the trial Court. 3. After hearing the learned advocates for the respondents-accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court allowed the aforesaid applications and discharged the respondents- accused. CR.RA/507/1998 3/7 JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the said decision, the State has preferred this Revision Application. 4. I have heard Mr.K.C.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the petitioner-State and Mr.A.M. Parekh, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.5 to 7. The Board indicates that rule is served to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 8 to 11, but none has appeared. 5. It appears from the complaint that one Mr.Ghanshyambhai Kishanchand Sindhi came to the complainant and showed him currency note in the denomination of Rs.500=00. On verification of the currency note, it was found that it was a counterfeit currency note. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against Mr.Ghanshyambhai Sindhi for the offence punishable under Section 489-B of the IPC. During the course of investigation, it appears that on the basis of statement of co-accused recorded by the Police Officer, the respondents were arrested. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against Shri Ghanshyambhai Sindhi and the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents preferred discharge applications under Section 227 of the Code and the learned trial Judge, after hearing, discharged them for the offence alleged to have been committed by them. It appears from the impugned order that except statement of the co-accused recorded by CR.RA/507/1998 4/7 JUDGMENT the Police Officer during the course of investigation, there is no independent, reliable and cogent evidence to connect the respondents with the offence. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also not disputed the observations made by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order with regard to the fact that there is no other evidence to connect the respondents with the offence. Therefore, except the statement of the co-accused recorded by the Police Officer during the course of investigation, there is no other independent evidence to implicate the respondents in the offence. 7. In the decision of this Court in Suresh Chhotalal Verma vs. State of Gujarat, 2001 (2) GLR 1029, this Court while considering the exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code observed that the word 'evidence' means legally admissible evidence and a bare statement of one accused recorded under Section 161 of the Code made to the Police during the investigation involving a person is not such an evidence and the person cannot be made to stand the trial. In the said case, the petitioner was arraigned as accused under Section 319 of the Code. Therefore, he preferred an application for discharge. The application was rejected by the trial Court and in the Revision preferred before the High Court, the above observations CR.RA/507/1998 5/7 JUDGMENT were made. In view of this settled proposition, the learned trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order. 8. Mr.Parekh, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.5 to 7, relied upon the decision of this Court reported in State of Gujarat vs. Mahmad Sarif Umar Gajal Muslim, 2007 (3) GLH 561 with regard to law that any confession recorded by the Police Officer is inadmissible. In the decision of State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: Reading Ss. 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under S. 227 or S. 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. CR.RA/507/1998 6/7 JUDGMENT 9. In view of the above settled proposition, in the instant case, as observed earlier, except the statement of co-accused recorded by the Police Officer during the course of investigation, there is no other evidence connecting the respondents with the offence. Therefore, even if the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the respondents, is fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, there is no material to show that the respondents have committed the offence. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in holding that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial against the respondents. 10. Mr.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has relied upon three unreported decisions of this Court in (1) Criminal Misc. Application No.2989 of 2002 (decided on 01.07.2002) and (2) Criminal Misc. Application No.5072 of 2002 (decided on 05.08.2002). All these decisions were in respect of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code and, therefore, in the facts of the present case, the same are not helpful to the prosecution. 11. In view of the above, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has failed to point out that the learned trial Judge has committed error CR.RA/507/1998 7/7 JUDGMENT in exercising powers vested in him and, therefore, the order is perverse and erroneous. Therefore, this Revision Application is required to be dismissed. In the result, the Revision Application fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [Bankim N. Mehta, J.] Rajendra