BARJURE KAIKHOSROO MAARFATIA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 16-12-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
BARJURE KAIKHOSROO MAARFATIA 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
December 16, 1977 
(P. K. GOSWAMI AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.J 
479 
Imlian Penal Code Sec. 408, 461, 471 and 477A-Forgery-Crl. Procedure 
Code 1973-Powers of High Court to interfere lVith order of acquittal. 
The appellant was prosecuted under section 471 read with section 461 and 
section 408 and 477 A of the I.P.C. According to the prosecution there is <r 
Rosary Cooperative Housing Society Limited, in Bombay. 
It owns a building 
having .48 fiats. 
Doongaji was elected as the Chairman of the Managing Com-
mittee of the Society. 
l\tfr. K. N. Singh was working as the figure-head Secr~­
tary. of the Society. The Society had a Bank Account which was 
operated 
jointly by Doongaji and K. N. Singh. 
One B. A. Sagar was working as 
the 
estate ·Manager of the Society and he retired due to old age. 
The . appellant. 
\Vho was working as Accounts Clerk in 
Sir Dorabji Tata Trust was 
appointed by Doongaji as an Honorary Accountant of the Society. 
A bill for 
Rs. 7.50 was submitted by Mis A. G. R. Patni & Co. The bill was forged by 
adding the figure 160 before the figure 7 inflating the amount to Rs. 1607.50 
in figures without altering· the amount.in words. The prosecution case further 
was that an inflated voucher /receipt was also brought 
into 
existence. The 
prosecution case further \vas that for the sake of convenience and facility ot 
work a practice was followed in the Society that at a ~ime about 8 to 10 blank 
ch.eques used to be signed by Doongaji and Singh and these used to 
remain 
with the appellant who used one of such cheques for making purported pay-
ment of the inflated bilf on the strength of the inflated 
voucher/receipt but 
converted to his own use the proceeds thereof. The prosecution case further 
\vas that 'the appellant wilfully and with an intent to defraud falsified the books 
of account of 1he Society, namely, the cnsh book by makng therein 
a 
false 
debit entry. 
Tke defence of the appellant was that there was no practice to keep in his 
custody the cheque book of the Society containing blank cheques 
signed 
by 
Dodngaji and K. N. Singh. According to him the amount of Rs. 1607.50 was 
paid in cash by hi'm to Sagar P.W. 2 on the instruction from Doongaji. 
The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to 
establish any of the charges against the appe11ant beyond reasonable 
doubt. 
The Trial Court observed that though there was a ring 
of~ plausibility and 
possibility in the case of prosecution in respect of the charges levelled against 
the appe1Jant conviction could not be based merely on possibilities unless the 
charges were established against an accused beyond reasonable doubt. 
Jn appeal, the High Court reversed the a_cquittal recorded in favour of the 
<lCcused and convicted him of all the charges that were levelled against him. 
The High Court. however. imposed only one day's imprisonntent and a fine 
of Rs. 20001-. 
The· appellant contended : 
( 1) The High Co~rt had erred in in~erfering \vi th the acquittal r~cord­
ed by the Trial Couft. The High Court 
before 
reversing 
the 
~cqu1ttal should have given cogent reasons for rejecting the reason-
ing of the Trial Court. Reliance was placed on the decision 
of 
this Court in Raiendra Prasad v. State of Bihiir. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(2) The entire prosecution case was based on the theory that 
about 
H 
8 to 10 blank cheques a~ a time signed by Doongaji and 
K. 
N. 
Singh used to be kept in the custody of the appellant. The Trial 
Court rightly rejected that tbeory. 
A 
B 
c 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[J 978] 2 S.C.R. 
(3) The Trial Court rightly held that the reasons which Sagar 
men-
tioned why he handed over the bill of Rs. 7.50 to 
the 
appellall(, 
were unacceptable. 
The Counsel for the respondent contended : 
(I) The reasons given by the Trial Court while recording the acquittal 
were clearly found to be erroneous by the High Court and High 
Court had given proper reasons for reversing such acquittal. 
(2) The High Court was right in coming to the conclusion 
that the 
prosecution had e~tablished its case against the appel1ant beyond 
reasonable doubt and thereforei rightly interfered with the order 
of acquittal passed by the Trial Coµrt. 
Disn1issing the appeal : 
HEID : 1. Rajendra Prasad's decision related to a case dealing with direct 
testimony of witnesses whereas the instant case could not be treated as a case 
where direct testimony

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.