CASE BRIEF: DIPAKBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

CASE NAME	Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547
CITATION	AIR 2019 SC 3363, AIRONLINE 2019 SC 201, 2019 CRI LJ 3763, (2019) 108 ALLCRIC 334, (2019) 199 ALLINDCAS 206, (2019) 2 ALD(CRL) 545, (2019) 2 CRILR(RAJ) 512
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Ashok Bhushan
PETITIONER	Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel
RESPONDENT	State of Gujarat
DECIDED ON	Decided on 24th April, 2019

INTRODUCTION

Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. The State of Gujarat is a case that was determined on April 24, 2019, and it raises important questions about the validity of actions taken in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The main focus of this case is the criminal allegations pertaining to fraud, forgery, and criminal conspiracy that were made against the petitioner, Dipakbhai Jagdishchndra Patel, for his possession and distribution of counterfeit foreign cash. Sections 489A to 489E of the IPC, which address offenses pertaining to counterfeit money and banknotes, provide the legal context for this case. These sections specifically outlaw the following actions: creating or using documents that look like currency notes, possessing counterfeit notes with the intention of using them as real and counterfeiting money. The aforementioned restrictions are designed to safeguard the credibility of currency circulation and deter fraudulent acts that jeopardize public confidence in monetary systems.

The case also involves procedural issues under the CrPC, specifically on the authority of law enforcement to carry out searches, seizures, and panchnama preparation. The legitimacy of the evidence produced during the trial depends heavily on how well these procedural procedures are followed. The ruling, in this instance, represents how these statutes should be interpreted and applied in light of claims of counterfeit money. The evidence standards necessary under this legislation to prove the accused’s involvement in criminal activity are the main focus of the court’s analysis. This ruling also emphasizes how important it is for law enforcement organizations to follow the law when conducting investigations in order to protect the values of justice. The case’s decision demonstrates the court’s strategy for striking a balance between the need to preserve economic security and individual rights by strictly enforcing rules against money fraud.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The complaint and the Sessions Court’s order rejecting the appellant’s request to be released from the offenses under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were challenged in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC. The complaint, dated 10.04.1996, describes what happened at around 13:00 when the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) learned that two people, Salim Mahebub Shaikh from Ahmedabad and Mahamad Rafik Abdul Hamid Kadge from Mumbai, were involved in the sale of counterfeit money notes from an Arabian nation. Near the Noble Building, Nehru Bridge, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad, they were allegedly charging a reasonable amount for the phony notes they were passing off as originals. Two panch witnesses were contacted and briefed about the circumstances at the ATS office after this information was received. They then consented to testify as witnesses.

After the first part of the panchnama (legal documentation of events) was finished, at approximately 14:00–14:15, a team comprising the complainant, panchas, and several police officers, including police constables Rameshkumar Sevadas Lashkari, Bhagwatsingh Madarsinh, Amirkhan Rasulkhan, and Dashrathsinh Bhagubha, as well as PSI Shri NB Jadeja, Shri BR Karavadra, Shri PV Rathod, Shri NV Kapiriya, and Shri KK Desai.

When they arrived, the group pulled up to the Natraj theater and started to walk toward the scene. They watched as three people were interacting near a gas station. The group performed a search after identifying themselves as panchas and police officers. When the first accused, Mahamad Rafik, was taken into custody, 43 fake 500 Saudi Riyal notes were discovered in his possession. Salim Mahebub Shaikh, the second culprit, was apprehended by PSI NB Jadeja, and 43 fake Riyal notes with a 500 denomination were also discovered on him. Constable Bhagwatsingh of the police detained accused number three, Usmangani Mahamadbhai Malek after he was found in possession of two fake 500-riyal notes.

Mahamad Rafik revealed under questioning that he had obtained the counterfeit notes in Mumbai fifteen days earlier and had contacted his friend Jagdishchandra Patel in Ahmedabad to sell them for a reasonable price. Rafik had gotten the notes from a man called Dipak the day before the arrest and sent them to Salim and Usmangani to be sold. After the false notes were seized, the panchnama was finished, and the accused’s Indian cash was restored with the appropriate paperwork.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether he accused have committed the crime covered by Indian Penal Code Section 489B and 489C?
Whether the appellant has a valid argument that the High Court erred in ruling that the appellant’s home was the location of the counterfeit money recovery.

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

The appellant’s knowledgeable Senior Counsel underlined that the High Court erred in concluding that the appellant’s home was the location of the recovery of counterfeit money. It was noted that counterfeit money was found close to a public road rather than at the appellant’s home.
Second, it was argued that when there is no other material to consider other than the co-accused’s statement, an individual cannot be prosecuted based only on that statement. The High Court should have granted the request for discharge and used its authority under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
The counsel emphasized paragraphs 7 and 8 in Umashanker v. State of Chhatisgarh 4 (2001) 9 SCC 642, which state that different economic offenses pertaining to forged or counterfeit money notes or banknotes are covered under sections 489-A to 489-E. In addition to safeguarding the nation’s economy, the legislation intended for these rules to adequately preserve currency notes and banknotes. Despite people becoming more and more acclimated to using credit cards, cash notes continue to be the mainstay of business transactions for the vast majority of people in our nation. However, these clauses are not intended to penalize careless owners or users.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

The State’s attorney called attention to the appellant’s own statement, in which he said, among other things, that he was informed by his co-accused that he had left a bag containing the fake notes at his house.
The State’s attorney suggests that the Court take into consideration the fact that the case is still in the early stages of charge formulation. Since there hasn’t been a case established for interference under Section 482 of the Cr. PC, she agreed with the High Court’s decision.
The appellant possessed the forged notes knowingly for a period of fifteen days, knowing they were phony and counterfeit. Prima facie satisfaction is needed to draft accusations. The possession of counterfeit currency is a serious offense that should not be taken lightly.

JUDGMENT

Proceeding under the guise of a co-accused’s confession and further alleging that all of the accused are on trial together and are charged with the same offenses (despite the fact that other accused are escaping and the appellant seems to be prosecuted alone), the Court determined that since no counterfeit notes were recovered from the appellant’s residence. No other evidence existed that could even raise a reasonable suspicion; it is required by law to release the appellant from prosecution. As a result, the petition and appeal submitted in accordance with Section 482 of the Cr.PC was granted. The Sessions Judge’s contested order, which framed the charges against the appellant, will be overturned, and the appellant will be released.

CONCLUSION

While a prior statement used to refute a witness does not become substantive evidence and only helps to cast doubt on the witness’s credibility, admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted. The application of a party’s admission as admissible evidence is one thing; the weight to be given to it is another. Even if an admission is made to a police officer during a criminal investigation under the Cr, PC, it will not be admissible under Section 162 of the Cr. PC because that section expressly forbids using statements made to a police officer under Section 161 of the Cr. PC for any purpose other than those specified. Even if relevant, a statement made under Section 161 would not be acceptable since it involves an admission; nevertheless, an admission that does not amount to a confession that could be made in any other way could be admitted as substantial evidence.

A co-accused person’s confession cannot be regarded as substantive evidence and can only be used in court if the judge is willing to accept further evidence and sees the need to obtain confirmation for the conclusions it draws from the relevant information. The presumption of innocence, which is the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, aids the accused and forces the court to rule that the charge is not proven against him and that he is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the doubt in criminal cases where the other evidence presented against him is completely insufficient and the prosecution attempts to rely on the confession of a co-accused person.

The Court, in this case, analyzed the importance of confession and admission along with their difference. It focused on the importance of establishing a prima facie case and also on the fact that if sufficient evidence is not present, then no prosecution can be there. It is irrelevant if the offense is of a grave nature. The principle of innocent until proven guilty prevails.