STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAJENDRAKUMAR GOKALDAS VAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a unique case where during the course of his examination-in-chief, the respondent who was a prosecution witness did not support the prosecution case, however, upon a request being made by the Public Prosecutor to declare him hostile, he moved an application supported by documentary evidence, raising objections against his being declared hostile. The trial Court considered the application on merits and after carrying out a detailed inquiry stretching over a period of almost eight months and permitting production of additional documentary evidence and calling for reports from the police authorities, has allowed the application and turned down the request made by the Public Prosecutor, leading to the present application.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present application are that acting on a tip off, to the effect that one Paresh Naran Chudasama- Vala and Ashok Devayat Aahir of villages Manavadar and Mandva, Taluka Kutiyana, respectively, have kept in their possession counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- and are trying to put theni in circulation, Mr. M.R. Godhaniya, P.S.I. Manavadar Police Station, arranged a raid. A yadi had been sent to the Manager of the State Bank of Saurashtra (SBS) to join the police to verify the genuineness of the currency notes which may be found from the possession of the aforesaid persons. Two panchas were summoned and a preliminary panchnama Exh.14 was drawn wherein it was recorded that the respondent Shri Rajubhai Vaja, Senior Head Cashier, SBS Manavadar, was present with a Scanning Machine for the purpose of verifying the genuineness of the currency notes. The panchnama records the presence of the respondent right from the inception of the raid. During the course of the raid the above-named two persons were apprehended and currency notes were found in their possession. The respondent examined the said currency notes through his scanner and found the same to be fake currency notes.

(3.) It appears that during the trial the panch-witnesses to the said panchnama did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Since, in the panchnama, the presence of the respondent was shown throughout the raid, necessity arose to examine the respondent as a witness in support of the prosecution case. The respondent during the course of his examination-in-chief did not support the prosecution case, hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor requested the trial Court to declare the witness as hostile. At this stage the respondent took out a written two page application Exh.20, along with a list of 5 documents and produced the same before the trial Court objecting to his being declared hostile to the prosecution.