Case: Dasrathlal Chandulal Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat

The petition for special leave filed by petitioner 1 Manubhai Chhaganlal Patel, was dismissed by this Court and leave was granted only to the appellant Dasrathlal Chandulal Joshi. A detailed narrative of the prosecution case is to be found in the judgment of the High Court and that of the trial Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. In order to under stand the charge against the appellant certain admitted facts may be mentioned : It appears that Sadachar Samiti had printed a number of receipts which were given to different authorised persons for collection of funds on behalf of the Committee in aid of a famine relief fund organised by the Bansakathe Famine Relief Committee. This fund was meant to give relief to thepeople of Bansakathe district. It was alleged by the prosecution that accused 1 forged a number of receipts starting from series No. 5000 and passed the same as genuine and collected donation from various persons of whom PWs 1 to 8 have been examine as prosecution witnesses. There is absolutely no allegation that either when the receipts were printed by accused 1 or at any other time the appellant was taken into confidence and had any knowledge that the receipts had been actually forged by the accused, nor is there any evidence that the appellant got and money or derived any profits from the amounts realised by accused 1. The only limited role played by the appellant was that he accompanied accused 1 wherever he went for collecting donations. The trail Court after considering the evidence came to a clear finding that there was no evidence to show that the appellant had any knowledge regarding the activity of accused 1. In this connection the trail Court observed as follows :I may further state that it was stated by all the witnesses that it was accused 1 and accused 2 did not speak anything at all. There is also no evidence to show that accused 2 had knowledge regarding the activity of accused 1. I would have therefore, even if I had come to the conclusion that accused 1 had issued the receipts in question to the witnesses, given benefit of doubt to accused 2 and acquitted him of the charge levelled against him.

Court's reasoning:
Under these circumstances, therefore, it will be difficult for the prosecution to substantiate the charge against the appellant merely on the ground that the appellant accompanied accused 1 wherever he went to collect donations. Mr. Sharma appearing for the State frankly conceded that apart from the evidence that the appellant had accompanied accused 1 there was no evidence of any overt act to show that the appellant endorsed the stand of accused 1. It was further argued by Mr. Sharma that in somethere was a discrepancy between the amount mentioned in the Red Book and the receipt and, therefore, the appellant must be presumed to know that this discrepancy was there. We are, however, unable to accept this argument in the absence of any evidence to show that the appellant had been shown the Red Book previously and had compared it with the receipts so as to have clear knowledge of the discrepancy and still he kept quiet when accused I was collecting donations from various persons. We have gone through the evidence of PWs 1 to 8 and we are unable to find that they in any way show that the appellant was a party to the forgery committed by accused I.For these reasons we are satisfied that there is no legal evidence against the appellant and the High Court was wrong in law in reversing the acquittal of the appellant. We fully agree with the finding and the reasoning of the trial Court, a portion of which has been extracted above by which the trial Court acquitted the appellant.