Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/2417/2005 18/ 18 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2417 of 2005
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2366 of 2005
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2367 of 2005
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2368 of 2005
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 64 of 2008
For Approval
and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
GORDHANBHAI
PREMJIBHAI BALAR – Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT – Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MITESH R AMIN for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR SHAH, APP for Opponent(s) :
1, in all
APPEALS
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 22/06/2009
ORAL
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1.0 Criminal
Appeal No. 2417 of 2005, under section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, filed by the appellant original accused No.1, is
directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 29.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Amreli, in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2004, whereby the appellant –
accused No.1 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7
years with fine of Rs. 4000/- i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for
eight months.
1.1 Criminal
Appeal No. 2366 of 2005, under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the State of Gujarat, is directed
against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.7.2005 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.
52 of 2004, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has acquitted
the respondent original accused No.4 from the charges levelled
against him.
1.2 Criminal
Appeal No. 2367 of 2005, under section 377 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is filed by the State of Gujarat for enhancement of
sentence awarded to the respondents original accused Nos.1, 2 &
3, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli, vide judgment
and order dated 29.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2004, whereby the accused
were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine
of Rs.4000/- i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months.
1.3 Criminal
Appeal No. 2368 of 2005, under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the State of Gujarat, is directed
against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.7.2005 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.
65 of 2004, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has acquitted
the respondent original accused No.5 from the charges levelled
against him.
1.4 Criminal
Appeal No. 64 of 2008, under section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, is filed by the appellants original accused
Nos.2 & 3 against the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 29.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2004.
2.0 The
brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2.1 It
is the case of the prosecution that on 10.2.2004 one Mr. V.C.
Manjariya, complainant was discharging his duty as Police Sub
Inspector at Rajula Police Station. On information being received by
Bhabhlubhai Hakabhai, Head Constable that three persons were coming
from Surat and would be staying at the place of Chhaganbhai Lavjibhai
Patel, and all were in activities of counterfeiting currency notes,
the complainant Shri Manjariya went to the place of offence along
with police staff and panchas. On reaching the place of incident they
found three persons, namely, the present appellants original
accused Nos.1, 2 & 3, who were actively found in the activity of
making fake currency notes of Rs.100 and Rs.500 etc. The complainant
after making close scrutiny at the place of incident at every nook
and corner and after performing due process of law collected all
materials lying at the place. It is also alleged in the complaint
that mean time, during interrogation, name of one other accused
person is also disclosed. The said person was also arrested and
interrogated by the police and was taken into the custody. All the
persons were charged with the offences with regard to counterfeiting
currency notes.
2.2 On
the basis of complaint the police recorded the statement of
witnesses, collected the documentary evidence, drew necessary
panchnama and after thorough investigation, as there was sufficient
evidence connecting the respondents with the alleged offence,
charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence alleged
against the respondents was exclusively triable by a Court of
Sessions, the learned JMFC, committed the case to the Court of
Sessions, Amreli, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 52 of 2004.
2.3 It
is to be noted that in the original charge-sheet in column No.2 one
Pravinbhai Jayrambhai Chopda, original accused No.5 was shown as
absconding. Originally, the Sessions Case No.52 of 2004 was
registered against the original accused Nos.1 to 4 and the case was
committed to the Sessions Court. Thereafter accused No.5 was arrested
and charge sheet was filed against him on 23.6.2004 and the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions u/s.209 Cr.P.C., which was
numbered as Sessions Case No.65 of 2004. Since all the accused were
involved in the same transaction, both the Sessions Cases were
consolidated.
2.4 Thereafter
the charge was framed against all the accused by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli. The accused pleaded not guilty to
the charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the trial was
conducted against the accused.
2.5 To
prove the case against the respondents – accused, the prosecution has
examined following witnesses :
Pareshbhai
Kamleshbhai, Ex.14;
Vinubhai
Parshottambhai, Ex.16;
Chhaganbhai
Lavjibhai, Ex.18;
Bhabhlubhai
Hakabhai , Ex.19;
Bachubhai
Umedsinh Gohil, Exh.27;
Babubhai
Jeshankerbhai Joshi, Ex.34;
Vajirbhai
Chandbhai Gori, Ex.36;
Shantilal
Mavjibhai Vegda, Ex.37;
Pankajbhai
Premjibhai Patel, Ex.38;
Ghanshyamsinh
Ranjitsinh Chudasma, Ex.39;
Shailesh
Harikrushna Shah, Ex.43;
Investigating
Officer & PSI Vanrajsinh Suragbhai Manjaria, complainant,
Ex.45;
Investigating
Officer & PSI Gambhirsinh Tapubha Jadeja, Exh. 60;
Aniruddhsinh
Ranjitsinh Chudasma, Ex. 71;
Gumansinh
Natubha Chudasma, Exh. 73;
Gautam
Kantilal Raval, Exh. 74;
Bhimjibhai
Gopalbhai Patel, Exh. 77
2.6 The
prosecution has produced the following documents:
1. Panchnama
of arrest of accused and the recovery of Muddamal articles, Exh.
28;
Rehearsal
panchnama, Exh. 35;
Complaint
Exh. 46;
Panchnama
of recovery of muddamal colour xerox machine from the house of
father of accused No.4;
Search
order made by PSI Manjaria under the provision of Section 166
Cr.P.C. of the house of father of accused No.4, Exh. 48;
Panchnama
of arrest and physical condition of accused No.4 Exh.49;
Recovery
panchnama of four cartridges of HP Inject Printers from the house of
Vaghjibhai Dharamshibhai at Polarpur, Exh. 61;
Rehearsal
panchnama in presence of Videographer showing as to how the bogus
currency notes worth Rs.100 and Rs.500 on one side are prepared in
colour xerox, Exh. 62;
Report
submitted by PSI Gambhirsinh Tapubha Jadeja regarding transfer of
papers to PSI, Rajula, on his transfer, Exh. 63;
Report
made by PSO Shri Rathod, about handing over investigation to PSI
Shri Gambhirsinh Tapubha Jadeja (PW 13) of Jafrabad Police Station,
after registration of offence, Exh. 64;
Copy
of Janva Jog Entry no.1/04 of Barvala Police Station, Exh. 65;
Muddamal
Receipt of Entry No.1/04 of Barvala Police Station, Exh. 66;
2.7 Thereafter,
the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. were
recorded in which also the accused denied the charges leveled against
them and stated that they have been falsely involved in the
commission of offence. After considering the oral as well as
documentary evidence and after hearing arguments on behalf of
prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Amreli, by Judgment and order dated 29.7.2005 convicted the accused
Nos.1, 2 & 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 489-A,
489-C and 489-D read with Section 34 I.P. Code and awarded sentence
of 7 years’ Rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.4000/- for each
offence and in default to under-go simple imprisonment for 8 months.
The learned Sessions Judge also ordered that sentence shall run
concurrently. By the said Judgment and order the learned Additional
Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused Nos.4 & 5 from
the offences charged against them.
2.7 Being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated
29.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli,
in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2004 and 65 of 2004 respectively, the
appellant original accused No.1 filed Criminal Appeal No.2417 of
2005 challenging the Judgment and order of conviction passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant State of Gujarat
has filed Criminal Appeal No.2366 of 2005 against the Judgment and
order acquittal of original accused No.4, Criminal Appeal No. 2367 of
2005 for enhancement of sentence to the original accused Nos.1, 2 &
3, Criminal Appeal No.2368 of 2005 against the Judgment and order of
acquittal of original accused No.5, Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2008 by
original accused Nos.2 & 3 against the Judgment and order of
conviction, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
3.0 First
we will deal with Criminal Appeal No.2366 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal
No.2368 of 2005, filed by the State of Gujarat, challenging the
Judgment and Order of acquittal of original accused Nos.4 & 5
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amreli, in above Sessions
Case.
4.0 We
have heard learned APP Ms. Manisha Shah on behalf of appellants
State and learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent –
original accused No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.2366 of 2005. We have
also gone through the papers produced before us. It was contended by
learned APP that the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge is
against the provisions of law; the learned Judge has not properly
appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence available on the
record of the case in its true and proper perspective. She has
contended that the witnesses have fully supported the case of the
prosecution. She has also contended that the learned Judge ought to
have appreciated that there was common intention of the original
accused Nos.1 to 5 to make fake currency notes and, therefore, they
are equally responsible and that they were having possession of fake
currency notes to which they could not give proper explanation. She,
therefore, contended that the Judgment of learned Judge is erroneous
and bad in eye of law.
5.0 We
have gone through the Judgment of the trial Court. We have also gone
through the record & proceedings. We have also perused the
reasons assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We have
also gone through the papers produced before us. Learned APP has
taken us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
6.0 At
the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would
govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an
order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very
succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In
the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala &
Anr, reported in (2006)6 SCC, 39, the Apex Court has narrated
about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of
acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as
under:
54.
In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an
appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional
jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a
judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the
well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the
appellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal
recorded by the court below.
6.1 Further,
in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in
(2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following
principles:
42. From
the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general
principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with
an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
[1] An
appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider
the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
[2] The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the
evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of
fact and of law.
[3] Various
expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons , good
and sufficient grounds , very strong circumstances ,
distorted conclusions , glaring mistakes , etc. are not
intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an
appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature
of flourishes of language to emphasis the reluctance of an
appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power
of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
[4] An
appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal
there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.
[5] If
two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence
on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of
acquittal recorded by the trial court.
6.2 Thus,
it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even
if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
6.3 Even
in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa
V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the
Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In
para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:
16. From
the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the
powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal
would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the
approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality
and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any
reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized
as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of
appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgement
delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a
power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion
arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed
a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record.
A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to
re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis
of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused
is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.
6.4 Similar
principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State
of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR
SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP,
reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court
may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
6.5 It
is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the
appellate court is not required to re-write the judgement or to give
fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are
found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported
in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
&
This
court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty
of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial
court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to
reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general
agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which
is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.
6.6 Thus,
in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion
given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not
necessary.
7.0 Apart
from that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt against the original accused Nos.4 and 5.
7.1 While
appreciating the evidence on record the learned Counsel for the State
is not in a position to show any evidence against the original
accused Nos.4 & 5. While appreciating the evidence the trial
Court has found that there is no case against accused Nos. 4 & 5
and, therefore, benefit is required to be given to the accused Nos. 4
& 5.
7.2 The
trial Court has also found that as per the case of the prosecution
the colour xerox machine was seized from the house of father of
accused No.4, but the prosecution could not prove the ownership of
said xerox machine. It is also not brought on record that accused
No.4 is staying with his father. The investigation office has
inspected the house of accused No.4, but in incriminating articles
were recovered from his house. It is also required to be noted that
when the xerox machine was seized and when the raid was carried out
at Kandatiya village, accused No.4 was not present. There is not a
single evidence to connect the accused No.4 in the commission of
offence. The trial Court has also found that the prosecution has also
failed to prove the charges levelled against against accused No.5.
Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a
contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial Court
is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is
perverse or that the trial Court has ignored the material evidence on
record.
7.3 Looking
to the above evidence, the trial Court has rightly not believed the
case of prosecution and acquitted the original accused Nos.4 & 5
from the charges levelled against them.
7.4 Thus,
from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has
not proved its case against the accused Nos.4 & 5 beyond
reasonable doubt. Ms. Manisha Shah, learned APP is not in a position
to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that
the findings of the trial Court suffers from any manifest illegality
or that the decision is perverse or that the trial Court has ignored
the material evidence on record. In that view of the matter the view
taken by the trial Court is just and proper.
8.0 In
above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the
trial court was completely justified in acquitting the original
accused Nos.4 & 5 of the charges leveled against them. We find
that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and
proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity
has been committed by it. Hence Criminal Appeals No. 2366/05 and
2368/05, filed by the State of Gujarat, are hereby dismissed. The
Judgment and order dated 29.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Amreli, acquitting the accused Nos.4 & 5
respondents in Criminal Appeals No.2366/05 and 2368/05 are hereby
dismissed.
9.0 Now
we will deal with the Criminal Appeal No.2367 of 2005, filed by the
State for enhancement of sentence awarded by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Amreli.
10.0 It
is contended by the learned APP that the judgment and order of the
learned trial Judge is against the provisions of law; the learned
Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary
evidence available on the record of the case in its true and proper
perspective. She has contended that the witnesses have fully
supported the case of the prosecution. She has also contended that
since the accused have committed the crime against the national
economy and, therefore, in such type of cases the Court should not
have taken a lenient view and the accused should have been awarded
punishment of minimum 10 years sentence.
10.1 We
have gone through the Judgment of the trial Court. We have also gone
through the papers produced before us. Section 489A, B, C & D of
Indian Penal Code read as under :
A. Counterfeiting
currency notes or bank notes Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly
performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any currency note
or bank note, shall be punished with (imprisonment for life), or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation
For the purpose of this section and of section 489B, (489C, 489D
and 489E), the expression bank-note means a promissory note or
engagement for the payment of money to bearer on demand issued by any
person carrying on the business of banking in any part of the world,
or issued by or under the authority of any State or Sovereign Power,
and intended to be used as equivalent to, or as a substitute for
money).
489B. Using
as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes
Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or
otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit
currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the
same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with
(imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine).
489C. Possession
of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes Whoever has
in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or
bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged
or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it
may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine,
or with both).
489D. Making
or possession instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting
currency-notes or bank-notes Whoever makes, or performs, any part
of the process of making, or buys or sells or disposes of, or has in
his possession, any machinery, instrument or material for the purpose
of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is
intended to be used, for forging or counterfeiting any currency-note
or bank-note, shall be punished with (imprisonment for life), or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.)
10.2 In
view of above provisions, we are of the opinion that, keeping in mind
the documents on record, keeping in mind the total quantity of
currency notes found at the time of raid, the sentence awarded by the
trial Court is the discretion exercised in judicial manner which is
difficult to interfere by this Court. In that view of the matter even
if the second view is possible, in our view, the view taken by the
Sessions on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, is
just and proper and, therefore, we are of the view that the sentence
awarded to the original accused Nos.1,2 & 3 by the Sessions Court
is proper and we are not interfering with the same.
11.0 Accordingly,
Criminal Appeal No.2367 of 2005, filed by the State, for enhancement
of sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli
in Section Case No.52 of 2004, is hereby dismissed.
12.0 Now
we will deal with the Criminal Appeal Nos.2417 of 2005 and Criminal
Appeal No.64 of 2008.
13.0 Criminal
Appeal No.2417 of 2005 is filed by the appellant original accused
No.1 challenging the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 29.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Amreli in Sessions Case No.52 of 2004.
13.1 Criminal
Appeal No. 64 of 2008 is filed by the appellants original accused
No.2 & 3 challenging the Judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 29.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No.52 of 2004.
14.0 Learned
Counsel Mr. Popat on behalf of the original accused No.1 has
contended that the trial Court has not considered the fact that
currency notes seized by the police were not the complete currency
notes and it was only a preparation and, therefore, the trial Court
committed an error in holding the accused guilty for the offence
under Sections 489A of I.P. Code. He has further contended that the
time of raid and the panchnama are differing. In that view of the
matter, there are serious lapses in the Judgment and, therefore, the
benefit of doubt is required to be given in favour of the accused
appellants.
14.1 Learned
Counsel has further contended that the prosecution has not proved the
ownership and possession of scene of place and, therefore, also they
are required to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
14.2 Learned
APP Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah has supported the Judgment and order of
the Sessions Court. However, she has contended that in such a serious
crime no leniency should be shown and the sentence which has been
imposed is too lenient and the minimum sentence of 10 years to each
of the accused is required to be awarded.
15.0 We
have gone through the Judgment and order of the trial Court. We have
also considered the submissions advanced by both the parties. The
learned Judge has rightly observed it has been proved beyond doubt
that the muddamal articles were found from the room situated in the
vadi of Chhaganbhai Lavjibhai which were in exclusively in the
possession and occupation of accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 and it has also
been rightly observed that from the articles recovered which are
meant for preparing fake currency notes the mansria to prepare fake
currency notes and to circulate the same in the market is proved
beyond doubt. Further, no explanation worth the name has been given
by the accused persons as to how and why the aforesaid muddamal
articles were found in their custody and possession and, therefore,
the learned Judge has rightly held the accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty for
the offences charged against them. In our view the learned Judge has
rightly held the accused for the charges levelled against them and we
see no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, both Criminal
Appeals No.2417 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2008 are
required to be dismissed.
16.0 In
view of above, all the Appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 2417/05,
filed by the original accused No.1, Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2008,
filed by the original accused Nos.2 & 3, Criminal Appeal Nos.
2366 of 2005 & 2367 of 2005 against the order of acquittal of
original accused Nos.4 & 5 respectively, and Criminal Appeal No.
2367 of 2005 for enhancement of sentence awarded to the original
accused, are hereby dismissed. Bail Bonds shall stand cancelled.
Records & Proceedings be sent to the trial Court.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.)
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
sas
Top