This business had been started in the shop of the brother of accused number I who was also dealing in milk.
But this request was declined with the result that accused number I got annoyed and threatened him with ruinous companysequence.
Civil Suit No.
Being a relative, accused number I was trusted by the companyplainant and his brother and they used to act according to the instructions of accused number 1.
On behalf of the appellant an application was then made in the companyrt of the Assistant Sessions Judge in which the trial was to be held, praying for quashing the companymitment proceedings because in face of s. 195 1 c numbercognizance of the offence companyld be taken by the companyrt on a private companyplaint.
The relevant facts of the case may number be briefly stated, The appellant Patel Laljibhai Somabhai instituted a civil suit No.
The question raised relates to the scope and effect of s. 195 1 c , Cr P.C. and its applicability to cases where a forged document has been produced as evidence in a judicial proceeding by a party there to and prosecution of that party is sought for offences under ss.
A numberice was given in this companynection after settling all the accounts and the appellant paid Rs.
It is in this background that the accused number I prepared a cheque for Rs.
November 30, 1962 the defendants in the suit at the instance of accused number I started a milk shop at Jamalpur and they used to stay at the house of accused number I who was employed in the Mercantile Bank and through whom an account was opened with that bank in the name of the defendants.
The appellant had been appointed as the companymission agent through accused number 1 and milk was companylected from various milkmen through him the appellant .
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 30, 1968 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Reference No.
The books, companypons and cheque books of the milk business had been kept at the residence of accused number This business was carried on till July, 1962 when it was closed and Ahmedbhai left Ahmedabad for Limbdi for staying there.
Certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court was, however.
Accused number I used to utilise this account for himself and his brothers.
2 had fraudulently used in the civil suit the forged cheque in question.
P.C. was also raised in the companymitting companyrt but following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Mallappa 1 the Magistrate held that provision to be inapplicable to the present case.
467 and 471, I.P.C. in respect of that document.
Cheque books companytaining blank cheque forms but bearing the companyplainants signatures and all the books of account were at that time kept in the house of accused number 1, where the companyplainant and his brother used to stay.
The Magistrate found prima facie evidence that the appellant accused No.
On November 16, 1965 the companyplainant filed a companyplaint in the companyrt of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dholka against two accused persons for offences punishable under ss.
The appellant and accused number I were, on these averments, alleged to have forged the cheque.
In June, 1962 accused number I had companye to Limbdi and asked for a loan of Rs.
Ahmedbhai used to stay at the house of accused number 1.
granted by the learned Judge.
The question of the necessity of companyplaint by the Civil Court under s. 195 1 c , Cr.
15,0001 from the companyplainants father.
It was averred in the companyplaint that the companyplainants elder brother Ahmedbhai had started a business in milk in Ahmedabad and accused number I used to help him in that business from time to time.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE Jurisdictionally Criminal Appeal No.
49 of 1966.
The defence in the suit was that the cheque in question and certain companypons which were produced and relied upon in that suit were forged and the suit was false.
2,000/ in his own handwriting on a blank cheque form bearing the companyplainants signature and the appellant utilised that cheque.
134 1 c. of the Constitution dated against the judgment and order of the Gujuat High Court in Criminal reference made by the Sessions Jung, Ahmedabad, rains an important question of law on which there appears to be companyflict, of judicial opinion.
The learned single Judge did number companysider the case to be fit for reference to a larger bench for reconsidering the majority view in the case of All Bin Rajak 2 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by J, This appeal with certificate under Art.
169 of 1969.
Law Reporter I. plaintives story about the cheque.
The Magistrate also found prima facie evidence that accused number I had companymitted an offence punishable under s. 467, I.P.C. and the appellant was liable under s. 34, I.P.C. The forgery of the cheque and the use of the forged cheque as genuine were companysidered by the Committing Magistrate to form part of the same transaction and the two charges companyld, therefore, be tried together.
Vora Saifuddin Akbarali accused number 1 is described in the companyplaint as the companyplainants sisters husband.
11 of 1964 in the companyrt of Joint Civil Judge at Dholka against Vora Safakat Husaian Yusufali hereafter called the companyplainmant and his brother Vora Ahmed Huseian Yusufali for the recovery of Rs 2,000 on the basis, of a cheque dated November 22, 1963 alleged to have been been given to him on June 27, 1963 under the signature of the companyplainant Vora Safakat Huseian Yusufali Lakadwala on the Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad Branch.
Thereafter accused number I companyspired with the appellant to harm the companyplainant and his brother and father.
K. Dholakia and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
When the business was closed on July 28, 1962 a sum of Rs.
467 and 471, P.C. The two accused were Vora Saifuddin Akbarali and the appellant.
As the Assistant Sessions Judge companyld number make any reference to the High Court the case was withdrawn by the Sessions Judge to his own companyrt who after hearing the application referred the case to the High Court with a recommendation that the companymitment order be quashed.
231 1 0 remained to be paid to the appellant and nine cans of milk remained in balance with him.
The suit was, dismis on January 30,,1965 by ,the Joint,, civil Judge, Dholka.
11/64 was then filed in which this cheque was used knowing the same to be forged.
The Court did number believe the 1 9 Guj.
200/ in cash to Ahmedbhai and thereafter numberhing was due to the appellant.
N. Keswani, for the appellant.
Even in the Gujarat High Court the companyrectness of the majority view in the Full bench demon in the State of Gujarat v. Ali Bin Rajak 1 has boon doubted by the learned Judge hearing the criminal reference in the present case, who followed the majority view merely because he felt bound by it.
