Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Mohammed Shoeb @ Bablu Maqboolbhai … vs The State Of Gujarat on 9 January, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1100 OF 2017 MOHAMMED SHOEB @ BABLU MAQBOOLBHAI DIVAN APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1054-1057 OF 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1283 OF 2017 ORDER
1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are
the same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgement
and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for
hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common
order.
2. These appeals arise from a common judgement and order
passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated 4th
March, 2016 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 461/2005, 533/2005,
712/2005, 797/2005, 933/2005, and 1103/2005 respectively by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.01.16
which the High Court dismissed all the appeals and thereby
13:49:07 IST
Reason:
affirmed the judgement and order passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.13, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in
Sessions Case No. 250 of 2003, by which the appellants herein
stood convicted for the offence punishable under Sections
489(B) and 489(C) respectively of the Indian penal code, 1860(
For short “the IPC”). Whereas, they were acquitted for the
offence punishable under Sections 489(A), 489(D), 120-B, 201
read with 114 of the IPC.
3. We take note of the fact that the prosecution is of the
year 2002. Upon information received by a police constable
viz. Prakashbhai Chhappanbhai (PW-3) a raid was carried out
somewhere near the Cross road of Thakkar Bapanagar, Ahmedabad.
4. At the time of raid four appellants herein were searched
& fake counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of
Rs.100 and Rs.500 respectively were recovered from their
possession. In the course of the investigation, the other
co-accused also came to be arrested. Ultimately, all accused
persons were charge sheeted for the offence enumerated above.
5. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 22
witnesses.
6. It appears that the appellants herein examined 16 defence
witnesses.
7. At the end of the trial, all the appellants stood
convicted for the offence enumerated above, more particularly,
in accordance with the charge framed by the trial court. All
the appellants went before the High Court with their
respective appeals. The High Court vide judgement and order
dated 4th March, 2016, dismissed all the six appeals and
thereby affirmed the judgement and order of conviction passed
by the trial court.
8. The appellants stood convicted for the following offences
and were sentenced accordingly :-
Accused Offence/ Sentence by Trial Court
[@pg217 of the Paper Book]Accused No.1 • 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine to
Ajitkumar Pravinbhai the tune of RS. 5000 /- (Rupees five
Patel thousand only), in default thereof, to
And Accused No.4 undergo more 3(three) months rigorous
Janak Kantilal Patel imprisonment for the offence punishable
under Section 489(B) of the Indian Penal
Code.
• 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine to
the tune of RS. 5000 /- (Rupees five
thousand only), in default thereof, to
undergo more 3(three) months rigorous
imprisonment for the offence punishable
under Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal
Code.
Accused No.2 Anis • 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine to
Mansukhbhai Panchal the tune of RS. 5000 /- (Rupees five
And Accused No.3 Atul thousand only), in default thereof, and
Narandas Patel to undergo more 3(three) months rigorous
imprisonment for the offence punishable
under Section 489(B) read with Section
114 of the Indian Penal Code.
• 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine to
the tune of RS. 5000 /- (Rupees five
thousand only), in default thereof, to
undergo more 3(three) months rigorous
imprisonment for the offence punishable
under Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal
Code.
Accused No.5 • 2 years 6 months rigorous imprisonment
Bipinkumar Ramanlal and fine to the tune of RS. 5000/-
Patel and (Rupees five thousand only), in default Accused No.6 thereof, to undergo more 3(three) months Baldevbhai rigorous imprisonment for the offence Ranchhodbhai punishable under Section 489(C) of the Chaudhary and Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 7 Mahamadshoeb alias Bablu Makbulbhai Diwan
9. We heard Ms. Kruti Shah, Mr. Garvesh Kabra, and Mr.
Dwarka, the learned counsel appearing for the respective
appellants and Ms. Ruchi Kohli, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the State of Gujarat.
10. Considering the nature of the evidence on record and also
the manner in which both the Courts below have looked into,
the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, we find/
see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement and
order passed by the High Court. However, we take notice of the
fact that the maximum sentence that has been imposed is five
years with fine. Most of the appellants herein have undergone
50% of the sentence as imposed by the trial court. They all
have paid the fine as imposed by the trial court.
11. We also take notice of the fact that this prosecution is
now almost 22 years old. There are no other antecedents of the
appellants.
12. In such circumstances, we deem fit to allow all the
appeals in part. While maintaining the judgement and order of
conviction passed by the trial court as affirmed by the High
Court, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.
The bail bonds furnished by all the appellants stands
discharged.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
……………….J.
[J.B.PARDIWALA]
……………….J.
[R. MAHADEVAN]
New Delhi;
09th January, 2025.
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No.1100/2017 MOHAMMED SHOEB @ BABLU MAQBOOLBHAI DIVAN Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT Respondent(s) WITH
Crl.A. No. 1054-1057/2017 (II-B)
( FOR [PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENSTS] ON IA 10660/2016
IA No. 10660/2016 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENSTS)
Crl.A. No. 1283/2017 (II-B)
Date : 09-01-2025 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANFor Appellant(s) Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR
Mrs. Kruti Shah, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Jain, AOR
Mr. Pratul Pratap, Adv.
Mr. Jay Shah, Adv.
Ms. Dhruti Pandya, Adv.
Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR
Mr. Abhishek Jaju, Adv.
Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv.
Mrs. Nikita Jaju, Adv.
Mr. Avanish Deshpande, Adv.
Mr. Dwaraka Sawale, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeals are allowed in part in terms of the signed order.
The operative portion of the signed order reads thus:-
“we deem fit to allow all the appeals in part.
While maintaining the judgement and order of
conviction passed by the trial court as affirmed
by the High Court, we reduce the sentence to the
period already undergone.
The bail bonds furnished by all the appellants
stands discharged.”
3. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)