Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mahendi Hasan Moij Dalal & on 24 March, 2014
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel, Z.K.Saiyed
R/CR.MA/20443/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 20443 of
2013
In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1754 of 2013
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Applicant(s)
Versus
MAHENDI HASAN MOIJ DALAL & 10....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KL PANDYA, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 24/03/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
1. The present application has been preferred for leave to Appeal against the Judgment and the order passed by the learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godhra, in Sessions Case No. 112 of 2009 with Sessions Case No. 80 of 2011, whereby the concerned accused have been acquitted for the offence under Section 120-B, 201 of I.P. Code and other charged offences. However, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the concerned accused for the offences which were found to be proved.
2. We have considered the Judgment and the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. We have heard the learned APP for the State. We have considered the relevant evidence Page 1 of 2 R/CR.MA/20443/2013 ORDER which has been relied upon by the learned APP during the course of hearing for supporting his contention.
3. It appears that as per the discussion made by the learned Sessions Judge at Para - 31 & 32, the offences proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt is separately discussed and so far as other charges are concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the offence under Section 489A and 489D is not proved against concerned accused. The panchas for the possessions of the fake currency with concerned accused have not supported the case of the prosecution.
4. Under the circumstances, if the learned Sessions Judge has found that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused concerned for the offences under Section 489A and 489D read with Section 120B and 201 I.P. Code and thereafter has granted acquittal, such would not call for interference in exercise of the appellate powers of this Court against the order of acquittal.
5. Hence, leave does not deserve to be granted and, therefore, not granted. Application disposed of.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) SAS Page 2 of 2