1 Revn 354-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.354 OF 2010 Chetan Dhirajlal Gosalia .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors .Respondents Mr.R.M.Thakkar with Mr.A.S.Tungare, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.P.P.Bhosale, APP, for Respondent No.1  State Mr.Adhik Shirodkar, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Eknath Sawant, Mr.Archit Sakhalkar & Mr.Nihar Ghag, for Respondent No.3 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This Revision by the first informant takes exception to the Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai below Exhibit 37 in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2009 discharging respondent Rajesh Jayantilal Jogani for the offences punishable 2 Revn 354-10 under Sections 343, 344, 347, 364A, 368, 386, 452, 395 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The State had questioned this Judgment by filing Criminal Revision Application No.384 of 2010 which was disposed of by me by my order dated 7 th January, 2011. Thereafter, this application by the first informant has come up for hearing. 3. The applicant is a Diamond Merchant, who claimed that he had been kidnapped by the respondent and others acting in concert during the period from 5 th June, 2000 to 24 th June, 2000. During this period the applicant was forced to sell his shares through the respondent and the respondent made the applicant to pay several bogus bill of several persons when the applicant was in captivity. On a report, police had carried out investigation which resulted in their filing B Summary before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate rejected B Summary and 3 Revn 354-10 directed further investigation. The police, however, re-submitted the entire final report as charge sheet without adding anything which eventually reached the Court of Sessions where application for discharge was made by respondent Rajesh Jogani. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned APP for Respondent No.1  State & the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3. I have also considered an elaborate written notes of argument filed by the learned Counsel for the applicant and compilation of case laws as well as documents provided by both sides. The Revision Application itself contains a lot of material which can not be taken into consideration by a Criminal Court, since it consists of various new paper cuttings. The crucial question in this case is whether during the applicant's alleged captivity from 5 th June, 2000 to 24 th June, 2000 the applicant was made to sell his 4 Revn 354-10 share through the respondent and credit the proceeds in a new account opened in Bank of Rajasthan, from where the money was transferred by being shown to have been paid towards some bogus bills. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant is right in submitting that there should be absolutely no reason for a person like the respondent to get a thanks giving letter on a stamp paper. This is indeed unusual. The stamp papers are stated to have been obtained when the applicant and his wife were called at Hotel for a dinner on the 2 nd June and on another occasion. Stamp papers have not been attested by any authority and therefore, the dates of alleged execution of these stamp papers may not be conclusive of the matter. Likewise statements of several diamond merchants which have been relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent to show that they have been paid by the applicant by 5 Revn 354-10 cheques may not necessarily rule out the case of the applicant that he was made to sign those cheques during his captivity. It may be that the diamond merchants concerned had dues to be recovered from the applicant and it may be that the applicant did sign those cheques towards the dues to be recovered from him. It is also possible that because of his financial difficulties the persons to whom the applicant owed money hatched a conspiracy to get their dues liquidated by forcing the applicant to sell his shares. However, this possibility would not be enough for a Criminal Court to frame charges against the respondent, since the standard of evidence which ought to be before the Court for framing charge is that of a case which would warrant a presumption that the accused has committed the concerned offence. 6. In this case, there is one letter dated 4 th July, 2000 about which there can be 6 Revn 354-10 no dispute and in fact, even the applicant does not dispute about writing this letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bandra on 4 th July, 2000. This letter categorically states that the applicant was carrying on business of diamonds for several years. He had been dealing with the property of crores but because of some disturbance in the trade he was not in a position to fulfill his commitments. He stated that some merchants from Gujarat had been giving threats to the applicant and members of his family. They had been personally visiting his house and harassing the family members continuously. Therefore, he had taken shelter in other places because of insecurity as he was not able to go to his house, and therefore, he sought protection from the police. Thus, the applicant admits that he was in difficulty and he had not fulfilled his commitment. He had also admitted that he had threats from the persons from Surat. He had himself admitted 7 Revn 354-10 having taken shelter elsewhere ruling out his captivity. He had not named the respondent as the person, who had been threatening him. He had also sought police protection. 7. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned trial Judge should not have relied on this letter and should not have interpreted the letter the way the learned Judge had done. In para 34 of the written notes of argument filed on behalf of the applicant, the applicant states as under :- The Learned Judge gave his own interpretation to the Complaint dated 4 th July, 2000 made by the Applicant, without giving due opportunity to the Applicant to explain the contents thereof. The Applicant had made the aforesaid Complaint against those persons, who had implicated the Applicant at Surat, Gujarat, in a false case of Extortion and were giving constant threats to the Applicant. The said Complaint had to be read and interpreted in that context. The Applicant had already made a Complaint to PI Ansari as far back as on 11 th June, 2000, naming the persons who abducted him and kept him under captivity, and there was no 8 Revn 354-10 reason for the Applicant to repeat his Complaint, again. Now, as the applicant is explaining the contents of this letter in the Revision Application as well as in the notes of argument, he does not deny having written such a letter to the police. He stated that he did not name the respondent in the complaint because the applicant had already made the complaint to Police Inspector Ansari as far back as on 11 th June, 2000 naming the persons who abducted and kept him under captivity. This claim by the applicant would rule out his being kept in captivity from 5 th June, 2000 to 24 th June, 2000, since in this case, on 11 th June, 2000 he would have no opportunity to make a complaint to police inspector Ansari and name his captors. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that he had been taken by captors to police inspector Ansari. In that case, there would be no chance for him to name the captors in complaint before police 9 Revn 354-10 inspector Ansari. Therefore, it would have been necessary for him to name the captors when after captivity ended, he had an opportunity to write on 4 th July, 2011. So when the applicant had an opportunity to name his captors, he had not done so and he had admitted that he was hiding because of some threats from merchants from Gujarat. In the face of this, the story about the respondent's indulging in conspiracy of kidnapping the applicant and to make him pay bogus bills would appear suspicious and would make defence of the respondent that he, in fact, helped the applicant in liquidating his shares and to have the money transferred to the applicant's bank account which was opened in order to enable to the applicant to settle the dues. 8. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in holding that there was no case for framing of charge against the respondent. 10 Revn 354-10 9. Revision Application stands rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)