STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RANCHHODBHAI CHUNILAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State of Gujarat is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30-1-1989, rendered in Criminal Case No. 3558/87 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad (Khera), wherein the respondent Ranchhodbhai Chunilal Patel, who came to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, was at the end of the trial ordered to be acquitted on the short ground that despite the reasonable opportunity given to the prosecution side, it had failed to examine any witness.

(2.) According to the complaint filed by one Nirupamaben Vedprakash Sarbalia at Nadiad Town Police Station, the respondent Ranchhodbhai Chunilal Patel was serving as Sales Tax Officer (Recovery) in the Sales Tax Office at Nadiad. It is alleged that during that period in between 12-3-1986 to 4-10-1986, the respondent received various amounts by way of recovery from different merchants by way of sales tax to the tune of Rs. 98,696/- and failed to deposit the same. Not only that but in order to cover the misappropriation of the said amount, he forged and fabricated bank documents. On the basis of these allegations, after the investigation was over, the Investigating Agency arrested the respondent on 13-10-1986 and thereafter submitted a charge-sheet on 2-7-1987. It further appears that on 14-12-1987 charge at Ex. 3 was framed under Sections 409 and 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC and that while recording the plea, the respondent denied to have committed any offence. Thereafter the case was adjouned for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Ultimately, the trial court by an order dated 30-1-1989 acquitted the accused.

(3.) The learned APP while challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal submitted that the reasons given by the trial court cannot be said to be just, legal and proper. The learned APP further submitted that the respondent was a Sales Tax Officer (Recovery) and that he had committed a serious offence misappropriation of Rs. 98,696/-. Not only that, but in order to cover the said misappropriation, he has also forged and fabricated the bank documents. The learned APP further submitted that having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the learned Magistrate should not have felt himself helpless in issuing the warrants against the witnesses who were local witnesses. Ultimately, he submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter must be remanded to the trial court.