STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAGUBHAI DEVABHAI KOLIPATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5.11.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad in Criminal Case No. 1071 of 1993, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent - accused of the charges under sec. 409 and 477A of IPC, leveled against him.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: The respondent - accused was working as Deputy Mamlatdar in Revenue Department in the Office of Collector, Valsad. It is alleged that the respondent - accused was on deputation from 7th December, 1987 in the Civil Supplies Department of the State of Gujarat and he worked as Godown Manager in the said department from 7.12.1987 to 31.12.1988. From the Audit Report it was found that during the period 198788 the respondent - accused had committed various irregularities by tampering with the evidence and misappropriated 35 Quintile wheat. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent - accused has deposited the amount by Challan on 27.1.1989 and also confessed the offence before the Regional Manager of the said department. It is the case of the prosecution that permit No.184 dated 18.4.1988 was issued for 25 quintile wheat, however, the respondent - accused has tampered with the said permit and change the permit Number as "284" dated 19.8.1988, instead of permit No.184 dated 18.4.1988 and thereby the accused has committed the offence under Sections 409 and 477A of I.P. Code. Therefore, a complaint with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against the respondent. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondent was arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet was filed against him before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad, which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 1071 of 1993. The trial was initiated against the respondent.

(3.) To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.