AMRITLAL RATILAL MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To appreciate the question posed in the present appeal, it is necessary to set out in full the two charges framed against the two appellants. They were as follows:-

(2.) The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Baroda who tried the case acquitted both the accused of the charge under S.420 read with S.34, I.P.C. but convicted them under S. 477-A read with S.34, I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay fines of Rs. 100 and Rs. 500 respectively. The learned Magistrate was of the view that neither of the accused intended to cheat and make wrongful gain but that they made a false entry in the gatepasses with a view to help their employer. The two accused preferred an appeal to the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted them of the charge under S.477-A read with S.34, I.P.C. also. The learned Sessions Judge found that the gate passes were prepared by the accused under a mistake and that the worst that could be said against the two accused was that they acted inadvertently or negligently. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that the expression "intend to defraud" denoted some element of dishonesty and that the appellants acted neither willfully nor with the intent to defraud the Government. The State of Gujarat filed two appeals, the first against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Baroda on the charge under S. 420 read with S.34, I.P.C. and the second against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda on the charge under S.477-A read with S.34, I.P.C. The appeal against the order of acquittal on the charge under S. 477-A read with S.34, I.P.C. was dismissed summarily on 13-3-72 by J.M.Sheth and A.A.Dave, JJ. The appeal against the order of acquittal on the charge under S.420 read with S. 34, I.P.C. was allowed on 27/28-2-73 by J. M. Sheth, J. and the two accused were sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 300 and 500 respectively. It is against this judgment of J.M. Sheth, J. that the present appeal has been preferred by special leave to this Court.

(3.) The principal submission of Shri. Frank Anthony, learned counsel for the appellants was that in view of the findings of fact recorded by the Sessions Judge on the charge under S. 477-A read with S. 34, which had become final as a result of the dismissal of the appeal by Sheth and Dave, JJ., the charge under S. 420 read with S. 34. I.P.C. must automatically fail. The learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the High Court convicting the appellants under S. 420 read with S. 34, I.P.C. was patently wrong. We are inclined to agree with the submission of Shri Frank Anthony.