STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ARVINDBHAI JAGJIVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant -State under sec. 378 of CrPC against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.5.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagsara in Criminal Case No. 267 of 1992.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, against the present respondents, a complaint was filed and investigation was carried out by the police for the offence punishable under section 468, 465, 188 and 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge -sheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagsara. Thereafter, the Criminal Case No. 267 of 1992 was registered against the respondents. The witnesses were examined and documentary evidence were also produced before the trial court and the statements of the respondents were recorded under sec. 313 of CrPC by the trial court. At the end of the trial, both the respondents were acquitted by the learned Judge. Against the said judgment and order of acquittal, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(3.) HEARD Ms. Darshana Pandit learned APP for the appellant. She has submitted that the trial court has not applied its mind while passing the acquittal order. It is on record to show that both the respondents, in collusion with each other, misused the receipt of examination and photograph of respondent no. 2 was taken out and respondent no. 1 has affixed his own photograph and bogus signatures of Principal and other officers of the school were obtained and thereafter appeared in the examination. She has also submitted that prima facie it shows that both the respondents have committed the alleged offence and forged the document like examination receipt and respondent no. 1 has appeared in the examination on behalf of respondent no. 2. She has also submitted that no doubt there may be some negligence in the investigation by the Investigating Agency and proper investigation may not be carried out by the Investigating Agency, but it is not fatal to the prosecution case and the learned Judge cannot apply his mind in such a way and hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.