Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: C.C. No.470/PW/2005
Presented on : 1 0.03.2005
Registered on : 10.03.2005
Decided on : 18.10.2019
Duration : 14 Y. 07 M. 08 D
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by Jaydeo Y. Ghule)
CNR NO. MHMM1800 00052020
Exh.7
COURT CASE NO.470/PW/2005
The State (At the instance of
Bandra Police Station in
C.R. No.503/2003) ......... Prosecution
V/s.
Anil Harishchandra Gurav,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
Res. at – Bandra (W), Mumbai. ........ Accused
Charge : Under Section 379, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Advocate of Prosecution Mr. Shaikh,
Advocate for accused Mr. Zamir Khan
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 18.10.2019)
1. The accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section
379, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “the
1
-- 1 of 6 --
C.C. No.470/PW/2005
Code”).
2. The facts in brief are as follows :
The informant Burndin Mahesh Racha informed to the police that
she was doing business of Beauty Parlour and having bank accounts in
ICICI Bank and Hong Kong Bank. Also she has maid Yamini Chavan for 24
hours at home and driver Mr. Sanjay Sawant. On 08.12.2003 at about
08.00 hrs. while watching pass book entries of ICICI Bank, she came to
know that Rs.20,000/, Rs.14,000/, Rs.16,000/, Rs.20,000/, Rs.25,000/
and Rs.25,000/ were withdrawn as she has deposited in Kontal Activa
Linked Term Deposit – 003801015060 in three years and not withdraw any
cash from this account. Therefore, she immediately went to ICICI Bank as
to who has withdrawn the money. That time at about 13.30 hrs. she
received phone call from Manager of Hong Kong Bank and asked her
whether she has given cheque of Rs.23,000/ to anybody? She told him to
stop that person and she went there. Manager informed to informant that
accused had come with cheque to withdraw the amount. She found that
signature on cheque was forged. On inquiry she got the knowledge that
cheque given by her driver Sanjay Sawant to accused. Sanjay Sawant has
stolen the cheques of her account in Hong Kong Bank and ICICI Bank and
withdrawn cash amount of Rs.1,68,000/. Manager of Hong Kong Bank
has called the police. Police came and took the accused with them to
police station. Informant and Manager also went to police station. As per
information police registered the crime against the accused. During
investigation police reveals that accused along with Sanjay Sawant in
furtherance of their common intention has stolen the cheques of Hong
2
-- 2 of 6 --
C.C. No.470/PW/2005
Kong Bank and ICICI Bank of informant. By making forge signature
withdrawn the cash amount of Rs.1,68,000/ from bank accounts of
informant. Hence, filed charge sheet U/Sec.379, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420
of the Code.
3. My Ld. Predecessor has framed the charge. The contents of the
offence were read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In view of the offences levelled against the accused following points
do arise for determination and my findings is against the said point for the
reasons mentioned below :
Sr.
No.
Point Finding
1 Whether the prosecution proves that accused
in furtherance of their common intention on
08.12.2003 at Hong Kong Bank, Dr.
Ambedkar Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai
committed theft of bank cheque book from
informant's possession without her consent
and thereby committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.379 r/w 34 of the Code ? No.
2 Whether the prosecution proves that accused
in furtherance of their common intention
forged the documents intent to cause damage
to the informant and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/Sec.465 r/w 34 of the
Code ? No.
3
-- 3 of 6 --
C.C. No.470/PW/2005
3 Whether the prosecution proves that accused
in furtherance of their common intention
forged a certain document purported to be a
valuable security and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/Sec.467 r/w 34 of the
Code ? No.
4 Whether the prosecution proves that accused
in furtherance of their common intention
forged a certain document intending that it
shall be used for the purpose of cheating and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.468 r/w 34 of the Code ? No.
5 Whether the prosecution proves that accused
in furtherance of their common intention
fraudulently used as genuine a certain
document i.e. cheque used it to be forged
document i.e. cheque and thereby committed
an offence punishable U/Sec.471 r/w 34 of
the Code ? No.
6 Whether the prosecution proves that accused
in furtherance of their common intention
dishonestly forged cheque by signing fraud
sign of informant and withdrawn amount of
Rs.1,68,000/ and used it for their own use
and thereby committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.420 r/w 34 of the Code ? No.
7 What order ? Accused are
acquitted.
REASONS
5. To prove the guilt of accused the prosecution examined informant
Burndin Mahesh Racha as PW 1 at Exh.5.
4
-- 4 of 6 --
C.C. No.470/PW/2005
As to point No.1 to 6 :
6. The informant examined. She deposed that she has bank account in
ICICI Bank. The unknown accused stolen some cheques from her cheque
book and withdrawn the amount of Rs.1,75,000/ from her account. She
informed to the police about incidence.
7. In such circumstances no incriminating evidence has come on record
against the accused. During cross examination witness admitted that she
has compromised the matter with accused out of Court. She has no
grievance against the accused. She is not interested to proceed further
against the accused. The prosecution thus failed to establish guilt of the
accused for the offences leveled against him. The benefit of the situation
has to be awarded to the accused and therefore, I answer point no.1 to 6 in
negative.
As to point no.7 :
8. The prosecution failed to prove that accused along with Sanjay
Sawant in furtherance of their common intention has stolen the cheques of
Hong Kong Bank and ICICI Bank of informant. By making forge signature
withdrawn the cash amount of Rs.1,68,000/ from bank accounts of
informant. Hence, I answer point no.1 to 6 in the negative. The
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Hence, I hold that accused is liable to be acquitted. Accordingly, I
answer the point no.7 and pass the following order :
5
-- 5 of 6 --
C.C. No.470/PW/2005
ORDER
i. The accused Anil Harishchandra Gurav is acquitted as per Sec.248
(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from the offences punishable
under Section 379, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
ii. The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
iii. Muddemal property i.e. cheques of ICICI Bank and Hong Kong Bnak
iv. Accused be complied provisions of U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.PC.
v. Dictated and pronounced in open court.
(Jaydeo Y. Ghule)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date : 18.10.2019 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai
srp.
6
-- 6 of 6 --