Gujarat High Court overturned Akbarali Saiyed’s 7-year jail term for misappropriation, ordering a fresh review due to unfair prioritization of a judge’s testimony over a peon’s, violating the Evidence Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
AHMEDABAD: Recently, The Gujarat High Court has overturned an order that sentenced an 85-year-old former court employee to a seven-year jail term. The octogenarian, Akbarali Saiyed, was accused of misappropriating cash and valuables from the court’s “muddamal” (seized items). The High Court has now instructed the lower court to review the case and make a fresh decision. The decision to quash the jail term was based on the argument that the lower courts wrongly prioritized the testimony of a judge over that of a peon, which is a violation of the provisions of the Evidence Act.
Background:
Akbarali Saiyed had served as a nazir (curator) at a civil court in Chhota Udepur, which was part of Vadodara district. The incident in question occurred in 1991 when the district judge conducted an unannounced inspection of the “muddamal” at the Chhota Udepur court. During the inspection, envelopes were discovered torn, and cash amounting to Rs 80,833, along with silver ornaments and a wristwatch, were found missing from the “muddamal.”
ALSO READ: Centre Nods for Gauhati HC Judge; SC Expunges Remarks Against Judge
Following the discovery of the missing cash and valuables, the civil judge and the judicial magistrate first class (JMFC) filed a criminal complaint against Saiyed, who was the nazir at that time. The court’s peon provided a significant testimony during the trial, stating that the complainant JMFC had opened the strongroom on November 15, 1991, after office hours, despite being informed by the peon and an in-charge nazir that the district judge had prohibited access during the inspection.
In 2000, a trial court found Saiyed guilty of misappropriation and sentenced him to seven years in jail, in addition to imposing a fine of Rs 5,000. This decision was subsequently upheld by an appellate court, leading Saiyed to appeal to the Gujarat High Court.
Saiyed’s legal representative, Advocate Zubin Bharda, emphasized that Saiyed was on leave on the day the alleged misappropriation took place. Furthermore, the district judge had entrusted the dominion of the strongroom to another judge, not Saiyed. Bharda argued that the lower courts erred in prioritizing the judge’s testimony over that of the peon, which is contrary to the provisions of the Evidence Act. Both the judge and the peon were prosecution witnesses, and their statements should have been treated equally.
ALSO READ: Former Allahabad High Court Judge Appeals to Supreme Court for Equitable Pension Rights
In light of these arguments, the Gujarat High Court agreed with Bharda’s contention and quashed the previous order that sentenced Saiyed to a seven-year jail term. The court concluded that the lower courts had erred in placing greater weight on the judge’s statement while disregarding the testimony of the peon. The High Court’s decision highlights the importance of impartially evaluating all testimonies and not giving undue preference to certain individuals based on their positions.
