Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Corporate Law

Gujarat HC Suspends Sentence in Forgery Conviction Over Absence of Handwriting Expert Evidence

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 9246
Case Name
Maheshkumar Harilal Rajpara Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

Maheshkumar Harilal Rajpara Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)

The Gujarat High Court considered a criminal revision challenging the judgment dated 31.03.2021 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2014, which affirmed the order dated 14.03.2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 939 of 1992. The trial court had acquitted the revisionist of the charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted him under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to one year’s simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000.

The revisionist submitted that an earlier conviction dated 27.01.2011 under Section 467 IPC had been set aside by the appellate court on 12.05.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2011, which remanded the matter for a fresh trial. According to the revisionist, after remand the Public Prosecutor stated that the State would rely upon the evidence already recorded and would not lead any additional evidence. It was argued that the subsequent conviction dated 14.03.2014 was therefore based on the same evidence that had existed before remand and was unsustainable.

The revisionist further contended that the allegation of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC relating to alleged misappropriation of municipal tax collections had not been proved, resulting in acquittal on that charge. It was submitted that the investigation into the alleged offence under Section 467 IPC was defective. The departmental inquiry had been conducted by the Tax Inspector, who was also the complainant and had submitted his report to the Chief Officer of Upleta Nagar Palika. The revisionist argued that although allegations concerned forged signatures of Ms. Tarulataben Seth on the stock register and Mr. B.N. Der on tax receipts, the prosecution had failed to establish that the revisionist forged those signatures. It was submitted that Ms. Tarulataben Seth merely stated that the signature appearing on the register was not hers and did not identify the revisionist as the person who forged it.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 19,669

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.