KALPESHKUMAR RAMANBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

  R/CR.RA/247/2009                                JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 247 of 2009

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================

           Approved for Reporting               Yes           No

==========================================================
                  KALPESHKUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL
                                Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS M BAROT(2964) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 25/03/2026

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

  1) By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with
      Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
      “CrPC”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside
      judgment and order dated 31.01.2009 passed by learned Additional
      Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand, in Criminal Case No.3004/2002.

  2) Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tejas M. Barot, for the applicant ,
      Mr. Rohan Raval, learned APP for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat
      and Mr. N.K.Majmudar, learened counsel for respondent No.2.
      Respondent No.3 stands abated.

  3) The applicant herein Bled a complaint against accused Nos.2 and 3 for
      the oCence under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 193, 197,


                                 Page 1 of 6
R/CR.RA/247/2009                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026




    209, 506(2), 120B and 34 of IPC, stating inter alia that, one Navinbhai
    Bhailalbhai Patel with whom the applicant was already having
    partnership, retired and the applicant required new partner.
    Subsequently, the applicant and respondent No.2 became partners
    and on that very day i.e. on 29.06.2001, respondent No.1 bought Bve
    stamp papers of Rs.100 each for the purpose of using the same for
    preparing partnership deed. The said stamps were purchased by
    respondent No.2 in the name of Kanhaiya Transport and after
    preparing partnership deed, which bear signatures of applicant and
    respondent No.2 and the same was thereafter kept in the custody of
    respondent No.2. The applicant required telephone connection and
    for the same, true copy in two sets of partnership deed were made on
    04.07.2001. At that point of time, respondent No.2 was counselor of
    Anand Municipality and Chairman of Octroi Department of Anand
    Municipality and therefore, the respondent No.2 got true copies of
    the partnership deed made from the original deed. Out of two sets,
    one set was produced by the applicant with telephone department,
    Ahmedabad for telephone connection. Thereafter, due to some
    diCerences between the parties, it was decided to discontinue the
    partnership. Thereafter, the applicant continues the business in the
    name of Kanhaiya Transport. It is to be noted that before formed
    partnership with the respondent No.2, the applicant was sole owner
    of 7 vehicles. The factum of ownership of the above vehicles being
    that of the applicant is also duly recorded in RTO record as well as
    insurance companies record.

4) Respondent No.2 Bled Civil Suit No.391/2001 whereby the applicant
    came to be served with the plaint with documents relied on therein.
    One of the documents was the partnership deed dated 29.06.2001
    between the applicant and respondent No.2. The respondent No.2
    accused fabricated partnership deed inasmuch as though the
    partnership deed was never notarized, the deed produced with the



                               Page 2 of 6
R/CR.RA/247/2009                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026




    same also contained signatures of witnesses. When the applicant
    compared the true copy with the copy of partnership deed produced
    by respondent No.2, it was noticed that the factum regarding
    ownership of the vehicles was changed from that of the applicant to
    Kanhaiya Transport and the number of vehicle was also reduced to 4
    from 7. Therefore, the applicant Bled a complaint in writing to Anand
    Town      Police   Station   which     culminated   into   Criminal     Case
    No.3004/2002.

5) The proceedings of Criminal Case No.3004/2002 adjudicated before
    the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand and learned
    trial court after appreciating the material evidence produced on
    record, acquitted the respondent No.2 accused from the charged
    levelled against him vide order dated 31.01.2009.

6) Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon
    perusal of the material produced on record, it appears that the
    complaint was Bled on 24.11.2001 in connection with an alleged
    partnership deed of Kanhaiya Transport Company, wherein the
    applicant and respondent No.2 were partners doing transport
    business. During the course of business, disputes arose between the
    parties, and on account of the same, Civil Suit No.391/2001 came to
    be Bled before the Civil Court at Anand. In the said proceedings, a
    copy of the partnership deed purportedly notarized before a Notary
    Public was produced. The said notarized document was alleged to be
    forged, and on that basis, it was alleged that the accused had
    committed oCences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery.
    Accordingly, the complaint came to be registered.

7) The learned trial Court recorded the evidence of 11 witnesses and
    considered 7 documentary exhibits. The crux of the case pertains to
    the alleged forged partnership deed dated 30.06.2001 relating to
    Kanhaiya Transport Company, which was produced as Mark 29/1. It is


                                  Page 3 of 6
R/CR.RA/247/2009                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026




    the case of the prosecution that the said document was forged and
    contained       interpolations.   However,   during   the     course       of
    investigation, the investigating agency failed to procure the original
    partnership deed. In the absence of the original document, the
    prosecution as well as the complainant failed to establish that the
    document in question was forged, and only a copy of the said
    document was produced and marked as 29/1. In absence of primary
    evidence, the contents of such document cannot be said to have been
    duly proved, and the same is not admissible in evidence. The learned
    trial Court therefore rightly appreciated the oral and documentary
    evidence on record. The Court relied upon the Notary witness -
    Manharbhai Gohil who was examined at Exh.26. The said witness had
    admitted that both witnesses had signed the document at Mark 29/1
    in his presence. Further, the complainant Kalpeshbhai Ramanbhai
    Patel examined at Exh.320 admitted that the stamp paper was
    purchased by him on 29.06.2001 and that he had signed the
    document. He also admitted that he did not possess the original copy
    of the said agreement and had obtained only true copies from the
    Municipality.


8) It further appears that the said document had been produced earlier
    before the Municipality for obtaining a telephone connection, prior to
    its production in the civil proceedings. It is also noted that prior to
    this, the complainant’s brother Pareshbhai Patel had Bled Civil Suit
    No.75/2001 against the accused. In absence of the original
    partnership deed, mere production of the document marked as 29/1
    cannot be said to have been duly proved on record, nor can it be
    conclusively held to be forged. The prosecution has thus failed to
    establish that the document at Mark 29/1 was forged. The learned
    trial Court has therefore properly appreciated the evidence and
    rightly acquitted the accused. So far as the oCence under Section
    506(2) of the IPC is concerned, no evidence has been produced, and


                                  Page 4 of 6
 R/CR.RA/247/2009                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026




     material witness Rupeshbhai has not been examined by the
     prosecution. Furthermore, no explanation has been oCered by the
     complainant for the delay in lodging the complaint.

 9) If we examine the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court, it
     appears that learned trial Court has already appreciated the facts and
     Bnding of fact not to be upset unless it is found perverse and Bnding
     of fact not to be substituted keeping in mind the ratio of Hon’ble
     Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander &
     Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC 460 as no perversity is found in the
     reasons assigned by the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has
     properly assigned reasons and given the Bnding based on evidence
     led before him and hence also, no interference at the hands of this
     Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.

10) It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
     Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of
     Chhatisgarh reported in (2022)8 SCC 204 wherein the Hon’ble
     Supreme Court held that section 397/401 CrPC vests jurisdiction for
     the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness,
     legality or propriety of any Bnding, sentence or order, recorded or
     passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior
     court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an
     error of jurisdiction of law. There has to be well-founded error which
     is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well
     settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does
     not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to
     reverse those Bndings. It is a settled legal proposition that if the
     Court below has recorded the Bnding of fact, the question of re-
     appreciation of evidence by the Court does not arise unless it is found
     to be totally perverse.




                                  Page 5 of 6
      R/CR.RA/247/2009                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026




    11) In the backdrop of the aforesaid conspectus, and in absence of any
           reliable, cogent, or trustworthy evidence, more particularly, the lack
           of material to substantiate the alleged forgery of the partnership
           deed, the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned
           trial Court warrants no interference. Consequently, the present
           revision application, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Rule is
           hereby discharged




                                                                           (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

           SUCHIT




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/03/2026 17:43:39




                                                    Page 6 of 6