The State of Gujarat vs Keshavlal Maganbhai Jogani and Ors.

INTRODUCTION

The case involves the incident that took place on 13th October 1982, wherein Mr Naginbhai Nathubhai Patel, an inspector under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, with his colleagues Mr Sureshchandra Kripashankar Pandya and Mr Krushnalal Sitaram Shah, went to the shop and residence of Mr Keshavlal Manganbhai (Accused No. 1) for the purpose of inspecting accounts under the Act. Thereupon it was alleged that Accused No. 1 had snatched an objectionable book of accounts from the complainant’s hands and handed it to his wife (Accused No. 3), while he, along with his son (Accused No. 2), assaulted the complainant. Further, the complainant claims that Mr Pandya and Mr Shah were wrongfully confined in Accused No. 1’s house. The accused were charged under Sections 332 and 342 read along with Section 109 or 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted all accused due to insufficient evidence, and the State of Gujarat appealed to the High Court.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Complainant: Mr Naginbhai Nathubhai Patel, Inspector under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946.
2. Other Officials: Mr Sureshchandra Kripashankar Pandya (District Registrar) and Mr Krushnalal Sitaram Shah (Head Clerk).
3. Accused: Mr Keshavlal Manganbhai (Accused No. 1), Chandreshkumar Keshavlal Jogani (Accused No. 2, son of Accused No. 1), and the wife of Accused No. 1 (Accused No. 3).
4. Incident: On October 13, 1982, the complainant and the other officials visited the shop of Accused No. 1 to enquire about books of accounts under the Bombay Money Lenders Act.
5. Sequence of Events:
   1. Accused No. 1 produced books of accounts for examination.
   2. The officials went to Accused No. 1’s residence for further inquiry.
   3. Accused No. 1 snatched an objectionable book of account from the complainant.
   4. Accused No. 1 handed the book to his wife (Accused No. 3).
   5. Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 allegedly assaulted the complainant.
6. The complainant sought police protection.
   1. The complainant alleged that Accused No. 1 and family unlawfully restrained Mr Pandya and Mr Shah from leaving the house.
   2. Charges: The accused were charged with offences punishable under Sections 332 and 342 read with Section 109 or 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
   3. Trial Court Decision: The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused of all charges.

MAIN ISSUES

1. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that the accused wrongfully confined the complainant’s colleagues, Mr S.K. Pandya and Mr K.S. Shah, to warrant a conviction under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code?

JUDGEMENT

The High Court of Gujarat was based on the appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of Keshavlal Manganbhai and others by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad at Navsari, for offences under Sections 332 and 342 read with Section 109 or 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from the complaint of Naginbhai Nathubhai Patel, Inspector under the Bombay Money Lenders Act. According to his complaint, during an inquiry held at the shop and residence of accused No. 1, Keshavlal Manganbhai, the complainant was assaulted, and two other officers, namely, S.K. Pandya and K.S. Shah, were wrongfully confined.

The court went into the question of the alleged wrongful confinement of Mr Pandya and Mr Shah. It is noticed that the information lodged lacked particulars of the alleged confinement since Mr Pandya and Mr Shah stated in their evidence that they were merely requested to sit down and told that they would not be permitted to leave until the complainant returned. The court found that there was no evidence of any restraint, threat, or instigation in the minds of the two public officials concerned.

The court referred to the judgement in Om Prakash Tilak Chand v. State, wherein the Supreme Court had held that to prove wrongful confinement, evidence must be adduced showing that the person confined had reasonable grounds for believing that he was not free to go, and if he attempted to do so, he would be restrained.

Thus, the High Court found no offence was made out under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code since there was no evidence of any reasonable apprehension of force or restraint at all.

REASONING

1. Absence of any Evidence of Restraint or Apprehension: The court observed that the prosecution did not establish the wrongful confinement of the two public servants (Mr S.K. Pandya and Mr K.S. Shah). The only accusation was that they were told to sit and would not be let go until the complainant returned.
2. No Force or Threat Evident: No allegation and no proof of any force being used, no threats being made, or the officers having any apprehension of an assault of force being used against them if they tried to leave.
3. Impression of Confinement: The court relied on a precedent (Om Prakash Tilak Chand v. State), which showed that to constitute wrongful confinement, the confined person must have reason to believe that he is not free to go out and that he would be caught if he attempted to do so. The court did not find any evidence of the existence of such an impression on the minds of the two officers.

CONCLUSION

The High Court of Gujarat upholds the acquittal of the accused and observes that the prosecution could not prove wrongful confinement as defined in Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The court remarked that there was no evidence of any restraint, intimidation, or reasonable apprehension of using force against Mr Pandya and Mr Shah when they were allegedly confined. Relying on the precedent from Om Prakash Tilak Chand v. State, the court emphasised that wrongful confinement needs evidence to indicate that an individual had a reasonable ground to believe that he was not in a position to leave and would face restraint if he tried to escape. In the present case, there existed no such evidence, as the officials were instructed only to remain seated till the complainant returned without any saying or threatening hint of force. Therefore, the offence under Section 342 was not established, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1051664

Written by Parth Srivastava, Kamla Nehru Vidhi Sansthan, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ of Legal Vidhiya.

‘Case Analyst’ ⚖️