RAMJAN HAJI HATHIKHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2014-2-268
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on February 06,2014

Ramjan Haji Hathikhan Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) AS all the appeals arise from the common judgement and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, they are being considered simultaneously. As there are Cross Appeals, parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court as "Accused No.1 (A -1), Accused No.2 (A -2), Accused No.3 (A -3)", as the case may be.
(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the complaint was filed on 9.6.2009 by Police Sub - Inspector, Shri C. L. Solanki, wherein it was stated that the information was received that one Jogaram @ Jogo Hiraji Suthar of Rajasthan was to come with fake currencies to be sold in the market near Adalaj four roads and hence, the information was verified and thereafter the watch was arranged. After undergoing the other formalities for raiding, when there was watch arranged near Belapeth Dargh at about 11.30, one person, who had put on sky -blue coloured pant, off -white coloured shirt of full sleeve, with a small black coloured hand -purse in his hand was coming from Kalol, Mehsana. When the said person reached near banyan tree near the gate of Shekhavat Transport, his conduct was found to be doubtful and, therefore, raid was effected, in presence of panchas, for Jogaram @ Jogo Hiraji Suthar (A -1) and on further search by panchas, of denomination of Rs.1000 , 350 currency notes and of denomination Rs.500 , 100 currency notes were found from the hand -purse. The said notes were seized and the complaint was filed for the offence under Section 489A, Section 489B, and Section 489C read with Section 120B of IPC. The said complaint was investigated by the police and it was found in the investigation that A -1 and A - 2 were also involved. In the investigation A -2 was found to be in possession of 100 fake currency notes of denomination of Rs.1,000 . Initially the charge -sheet was filed against A -1 and A -2 and then the case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Case No.94/2009. Thereafter, subsequently, as the involvement of A -3, Hajari Velabhai Suthar (Ori. Accused in Sessions Case No.102/2009) was also found, charge -sheet was filed separately against him and the case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Case No.102/2009. The learnedSessions Judge, thereafter, framed the charge and a common trial was conducted. Therefore, accused of Sessions Case No.94/2009 shall be referred to as A -1 and A -2 , whereas for Sessions Case No.102/2009, the accused shall be referred to as A -3 for the sake of convenience.
(3.) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 10 witnesses, the details whereof are mentioned at paragraph 9 of the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution also produced 16 documents, the details of which are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 10 of the impugned judgement. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter recorded the statement of each of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused denied the evidence against them and in the further statement, Jogaram @ Jogo Hiraji Suthar (A -1) stated that he was innocent and he had come for purchasing fodder/grass for his cattle and he has been wrongly arrested in a false case against him and he is not directly or indirectly involved in the offence. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution and the defence and found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against all the accused for the offence under Section 489B and Section 489C read with Section 120B of IPC against A -1 and A -2. However, so far as A -3 is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case for the offence under Section 489A read with Section 120B of IPC. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A -1, and A -2 for the offence under Section 489A and Section 489B read with Section 120B of IPC and further convicted A -3 for the offence under Section 489A read with Section 120B of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, heard the prosecution and the accused for the offence and following sentences were imposed on: - (1) A -1 and A -2, for the offence punishable under Section 489B read with Section 120B of IPC, with seven years R.I., with a fine of Rs.5,000/ - and a further six months S.I., for default in payment of fine; (2) A -1 and A -2, for the offence punishable under Section 489C read with Section 120B of IPC, with five years R.I., with a fine of Rs.2,000/ - and a further three months S.I., for default in payment of fine; (3) A -3, for the offence punishable under Section 489A read with Section 120B of IPC, with seven years R.I., with a fine of Rs.5,000/ - and a further six months S.I., for default in payment of fine. It is under these circumstances, Criminal Appeal No.2254 of 2010 has been preferred by A -2, Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2011 has been preferred by A -3 and Criminal Appeal No.541 of 2011 has been preferred by A -1 against conviction and sentence, whereas State has preferred Criminal Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.944 of 2011 for enhancement of sentence.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.