Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai Parsottambhai Chovatiya & 2 vs State Of Gujarat on 24 January, 2017
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 895 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
===============================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
===============================================================
PRAVINBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI CHOVATIYA & 2....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. ND NANAVATI FOR MR CHIRAG B UPADHYAY, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 3
MR RS SANJANWALA FOR MR PREMAL S RACHH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MITESH AMIN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 24/01/2017
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Page 1 of 17 HC-NIC Page 1 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT "Code"), is preferred by the applicants, challenging the order passed by the learned Sixth Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, I/c., Jamnagar, below application filed by the Investigating Officer in connection with the offence registered being C.R. No. I 135 of 2016 before City "C" Division Police Station, Jamnagar dated 19.9.2016, whereby the learned trial Judge issued warrant under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The aforesaid complaint came to be lodged against the applicants as well as other accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, wherein it is stated that the complainant and other persons are the owners of 24 plots of original Survey No.102, Final Plot No.64/1 and 64/2 situated at Jamnagar. It is also stated therein that one forged and bogus document of Power of Attorney was executed in favour one Pravin Kanabhai Kandoriya, accused No.3 and on the basis of said fake document, the said accused No.3 sold out in all 25 plots of the applicant Nos.1 and 2 by executing registered sale deed No.4333 of 2003 dated 11.12.2003. It is also the case of the complainant that the present applicants along with other accused persons hatched conspiracy and created forged documents and thereby transferred the properties. Therefore, the applicants committed alleged offences. Thereafter, the applicant No.3 herein had preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court on 5.7.2016 which came to be rejected vide order dated 23.7.2016. The applicant Nos.1 and 2 have also preferred anticipatory bail on 13.10.2016. In the due course of hearing of the said application before the learned Sessions Judge, the Page 2 of 17 HC-NIC Page 2 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Investigating Officer Mr. A.S. Chavda made application / report for issuance of warrant under Section 70 of Code against the applicants. In the said application, Sixth Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, I/c., Jamnagar, passed impugned order of issuing warrant under Section 70 of the Code. Hence, present Criminal Revision Application is preferred by the applicants herein.
3. On 9.11.2016, this Court has issued Rule making it returnable on 10.11.2016. On 2.12.2016, after hearing the parties, this Court granted interim relief in terms of para 12(B).
4. Learned senior counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavati for Mr. Chirag Upadhyay appearing for the applicants submitted that the order impugned is unjust and improper and learned trial Judge has wrongly passed the order and the impugned order is also not as per the provisions of well settled law. He also submitted that the Investigating Officer made such application intentionally with a view to keep the applicants behind the bar. He also submitted that the case diary and documents upon which the learned trial Judge put reliance, suffers from conjectures. He also submitted that the learned trial Judge has passed cryptic order limiting the scope of availing legal remedies and rights enshrined under the Code. He also submitted that the applicants have fundamental right to personal liberty and the applicants are not avoiding their arrest or interrogation and therefore, impugned order is wholly bad and same is required to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the dispute is of civil nature and for settling the score with the applicants, the original complaint filed false complaint against the applicants Page 3 of 17 HC-NIC Page 3 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT by abusing the criminal machinery. He also submitted that the applicant No.3 has preferred anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and same was rejected vide order dated 23.7.2016. Thereafter, the applicant Nos.1 and 2 preferred application for obtaining anticipatory bail and same is pending now and during course of hearing, the Investigating Officer filed application for issuance of warrant under Section 70 of the Code against the applicants as the applicants are absconders.
5. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati submitted that the applicant No.1 namely Pravinbhai Parsottambhai Chovatiya has preferred one application for quashing of the FIR being Criminal Misc. Application No.31127 of 2016 before this Court and said application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2016. He further submitted that while passing the aforesaid order, Coordinate Bench of this Court has noted that the order passed by this Court on 10.8.2016 in Special Criminal Application No.5088 of 2016 preferred by the accused No.3 - Pravinbhai Kanabhai Kandoriya, which was challenged by way of Special Leave to Appeal No.6885 of 2016 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on 16.9.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected said Special Leave to Petition by observing as under:
"No ground for interference is made out to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The special leave petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner for a period of four weeks from today. During the period he shall be at liberty to appear before the trial court and seek regular bail by serving advance notice to the respondents/public prosecutor. The trial court shall consider the application and pass appropriate order expeditiously in accordance Page 4 of 17 HC-NIC Page 4 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT with law.
Since we are not interfering with the quashing of the proceedings, it is open for the petitioner to urge all legal contentions before the trial court at the time of considering to framing of the charge and discharge application.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. "
6. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati submitted that in view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said accused was granted interim protection for period of four weeks with a liberty to to seek regular bail from the trial Court and the trial Court shall consider the application and pass appropriate order. Besides this, the liberty was also reserved in favour of the said accused to raise contentions before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge and discharge application. Learned senior counsel further submitted that said accused has been released on bail by the trial Court. He further submitted that the present applicants have preferred bail applications before the trial Court and the bail application of the applicant No.3 was rejected on 23.7.2016 and during the adjudication of bail application preferred by the applicant No.3, the application for issuance of warrant under Section 70 of the Code has been preferred by the Investigating Officer and leaned trial Judge issued warrant against the applicants. Therefore, the applicants are constrained to file present Criminal Revision Application. He also submitted that the present applicants have right to obtain remedy by resorting legal recourse in accordance with law. But due to impugned order, the applicants are deprived their rights for remedy available under the law. He also submitted that prior to filing of the application, Page 5 of 17 HC-NIC Page 5 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT the Investigating Officer made attempt to raid at the residential premises of the applicants and other places on different occasions and he noticed that the applicants are not available. This itself shows that the Investigating Officer is showing undue haste with clear intention to put the applicants behind the bar and by way of such impugned order, the rights of freedom of the applicants are not protected.
7. Learned senior counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavati has drawn attention to the judgment and order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : S.G. Shah, J.) in Criminal Revision Application No.535 of 2016 dated 20.10.2016. He submitted that said Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant No.3 challenging the order dated 2.7.2016 below the letters dated 22.7.2016 and 13.7.2016 issued by the P.I. of LCB Police Station, Jamnagar, whereby the said P.I. requested the trial Court to issue warrant in English language so as to execute the same upon the applicant as the applicant was avoiding his arrest and hidden in other States and in other States, a warrant of Court is necessary in English language for arresting such accused. He also submitted that aforesaid Revision Application is preferred by the applicant No.3 in connection of the FIR No. CR I 105 of 2016 registered with the Jamnagar City "A" Division Police Station for the offences under Sections 384, 467, 468, 504, 50692), 34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and the Coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed and set aside the warrant issued by the trial Court with some directions. Therefore, as per his submissions, the parity ground is required to be considered in this case.
8. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is absolutely illegal Page 6 of 17 HC-NIC Page 6 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT and suffers from legal infirmities. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance upon the case of Narayan @ Narayan Sai @ Mota Bhagwan S/o. Asharam Bapu Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2013(0) AIJEL-HC 231437, more particularly para 14, which reads as under:
"Thus, the Supreme Court has held that warrant of arrest under section 73 of the Code cannot be issued by the courts solely for production of the accused before the police in aid of investigation. Examining the facts of the present case, in the light of the above decision, it is clear that the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down in the said decision, inasmuch as, the warrant under section 70 of the Code has been issued solely in aid of investigation. Thus, the impugned order clearly suffers from a legal infirmity, which fact is also not disputed on behalf of the respondents. However, it has been contended that ultimately, the said error in the judgement stands rectified when the actual warrant is issued, because the same is in the format provided under the Code and that ultimately after arresting the accused under the warrant under section 70 of the Code, the same procedure would be followed even if the warrant is issued in aid of investigation, because the procedure for making remand application would still be required to be followed. In the opinion of this court, such contention does not merit acceptance, inasmuch as, the subsequent issuance of warrant in the standard format cannot cure the defect in the order, which goes to the root of the matter. Besides, the validity of the impugned order cannot be decided on the basis of a subsequent step which is required to be taken pursuant thereto, which is more or less ministerial in nature. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from a legal infirmity which would render it unsustainable.
9. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati submitted that as per the provisions of Sections 41(A) and 34 of the Code, the rights of the present applicants are required to be protected.
Page 7 of 17HC-NIC Page 7 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT He further submitted that the present applicants are ready to surrender, by keeping right open for the Investigating Officer to make application for remand to the trial Court and the trial Court shall consider that application for remand in accordance with law. He, therefore, prayed to issue similar directions in this matter as issued in Criminal Revision Application No.535 of 2016 on 20.10.2016 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
10. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin appearing for the State supported the impugned order and submitted that interim relief in terms of para 12(B) regarding stay of the impugned order is required to be vacated forthwith, as the applicants are involved in very serious offences. He read the complaint and submitted that this is a pure case of documentary evidence and from the evidence itself, it is very well reflected that the applicants have committed such serious offences. He also submitted that the applicants have hatched the conspiracy and looking to the seriousness of the offence, the concerned Investigating Officer has filed application for issuance of warrant under Section 70 of the Code. He further submitted that the applicants are also absconders and therefore, the Investigating Officer was constrained to file such application, as the Investing Officer made sufficient attempts to find out the applicants at their respective residential house and other places on various occasions, but they could not be found. The Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate the applicants, but the applicants did not turn up to him. He also submitted that in such circumstances, the investigation is not proceeded further as the applicants are not cooperating with the investigating agency. He also submitted that the bail application preferred by the applicant No.3 was rejected by the leaned Sessions Judge. He also submitted that co-accused, who Page 8 of 17 HC-NIC Page 8 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT has preferred quashing application being Criminal Misc. Application No.31127 of 2016 before this Court, for the quashment of the complaint in question, is also rejected vide order 23.11.2016. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the applicants are misusing their rights by filing present application for quashing and setting aside the impugned order. He read the complaint being CR No.135 of 2016 lodged before Jamnagar "C" Division Police Station against the present applicants along with other seven accused, with respect to the land bearing Plot No.64/1 and 64/2 known as "Sidhhipark" situated at Mehulnagar, Jamnagar and land having valuation of Rs.35 Crores and without knowledge of original owners / complainant, the subject lands / plots, a forged Power of Attorney came to be executed in favour of one Pravinbhai Kanabhai Kandoriya, accused No.3 and thereafter, on the basis of said Power of Attorney, the plots were sold out to the applicant Nos.1 and 2 herein.
11. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin that the bail application of the applicant No.2 was rejected by the Sessions Court and said order of rejection becomes final as the said rejection order is not challenged before the higher forum. Therefore, the said applicant has no option to surrender before the prosecution agency. He also submitted that the said applicant is also involved in several other cases having similar modus operandy. He further submitted that recently, FIR being 105 of 2016 has been registered with the City "A" Division Police Station, Jamnagar, for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. He also submitted that thereafter, the applicant No.3 preferred Criminal Misc.
Page 9 of 17HC-NIC Page 9 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Application No.3604 of 2016 for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and same was withdrawn as this Court was not inclined to allow the said application. It is therefore, submitted that the similar modus operandi has been used in the aforesaid FIR. He further submitted that against the applicant No.3, one another FIR being 106 of 2016 came to be filed before "A" Division Police Station, Jamnagar and bail in connection of the said FIR, was granted by the Sessions Court vide order dated 23.7.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.577 of 2016, on certain conditions and one of the condition is such that the applicant No.3 was required to present himself before the Investigation Officer on 29.7.2016, but the applicant No.3 failed to appear before the Investigating Officer. He also submitted that the said applicant has not deposited passport, as there is one of the condition to deposit the passport. It is also submitted that later on, said bail was cancelled by the Sessions Court. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that said cancellation of bail order is challenged before this Court by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 876 of 2016 and same is pending.
12. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin submitted that the applicant Nos.1 and 2 have also preferred anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected by the Sessions Court on 24.10.2016. He also submitted that so far as the role attributed by the applicant Nos.1 and 2 is concerned, the said applicants purchased the land worth Rs.6,51,000/- though they have no capacity to purchase the same looking to their bank accounts and income tax records and therefore, it can be said that they have hatched conspiracy. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin further submitted that there are statements of their relatives and neigbours of the applicants with regard to their Page 10 of 17 HC-NIC Page 10 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT non-availability at the given addresses. The Investigating Officer made so many attempts to trace out the applicants, but they have not been traced out and therefore, he was constrained to file such application for issuance of warrant under Section 70 of the Code before the trial Court and therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed impugned order and same is not required to be disturbed in the large public interest to stop the illegal activities of land grabbing. In view of the aforesaid submissions, he prayed to dismiss aforesaid application. He also submitted that if the applicants are not arrested or present before the Investigating Officer, then there are chances to flee away and then it is difficult to find out them.
13. Learned senior counsel Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala for Mr. Premal Rachh appearing on behalf of the original complainant has strongly opposed the application and supported the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. He further submitted that the applicants are land grabbers operate with a similar modus operandi of grabbing open plots of innocent owners and they are evading their arrest and even police has made several attempts to find out them, but they are not found and therefore, as a last resort, the trial Court passed impugned order on the basis of application made by the Investigating Officer for issuance of arrest warrant under Section 70 of the Code. He also drew the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.6885 of 2016 for the accused namely Pravinbhai Kanabhai Kandoriya (same is already stated in earlier part of this order). He, therefore, prayed to reject present application as the learned trial Judge has rightly passed the impugned order due to non-
Page 11 of 17HC-NIC Page 11 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT availability of the applicants at any place and therefore, no interference is required to be called for.
14. Perused the records of the case and considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties. As per the complaint, the applicants have been named for the offences alleged against them.Here the factual details are not material at this stage because it is undisputed fact that there is FIR against the applicants and that the accused could not succeed in quashing such FIR or getting anticipatory bail and, therefore, sooner or later they would be arrested by the police. Thereby, the said accused have no option but to surrender to the Judicial Authority for facing the trial and before that, they needs to cooperate with the investigating agency so as to enable the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation. At this stage, it is also clear that if the applicants have not committed any offence then they have no reason to be afraid of appearing before the Investigating Officer. But hiding from investigation would certainly result into issuance of warrant of arrest. Even the applicants have made attempts to get anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court and the application of the applicant No.3 herein was rejected by the Sessions Court. It appears that the applicants are not traced out either at their residence or other places and in this regard statements of the relatives and neighbours of the applicants are recorded by the police. It also appears that the applicant No.3 filed application under Section 482 before this Court and same was withdrawn. It also appears that the applicant No.3 has been granted bail by the Sessions Court on certain conditions. It also appears that during the pendency of the bail application filed by the applicant Nos.1 and 2, on 19.9.2016, the Investigating Officer was constrained to file the application for issuance of arrest Page 12 of 17 HC-NIC Page 12 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT warrant under Section 70 of the Code. It also appears that the applicants remain absconders. Said anticipatory bail preferred by the applicants, came to be rejected by the Sessions Court on 24.10.2016.
15. This Court perused the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.6885 of 2016 dated 16.9.2016 (for co-accused namely Pravin Kanabhai Kandoriya), which reads as under:
"No ground for interference is made out to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The special leave petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner for a period of four weeks from today. During the period he shall be at liberty to appear before the trial court and seek regular bail by serving advance notice to the respondents/public prosecutor. The trial court shall consider the application and pass appropriate order expeditiously in accordance with law.
Since we are not interfering with the quashing of the proceedings, it is open for the petitioner to urge all legal contentions before the trial court at the time of considering to framing of the charge and discharge application.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. "
16. This Court has also perused the decision in the case of Rahman Vs. The State of U.P. reported in 1972 Supreme Court 118, wherein it is observed that absconding by itself is not conclusive either of guilt or of guilty conscience. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 21, which reads as under:
Page 13 of 17HC-NIC Page 13 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT "It is true that the appellant was concealing himself for nearly a month though he must have known that he was wanted by the police and that he left his wife to face the situation alone. But absconding by itself is not conclusive either of guilt or of a guilty conscience. For a person may abscond on account of fear of being involved in the offence or for any other allied reason."
17. Therefore, the aspect of absconding is not proving that the applicants are absconders as they have committed alleged offences, but there must be proved a chain of circumstances against the accused.
18. But here in this present case, it appears that the applicants are not traced out and therefore, such order for issuance of warrant is passed by the trial Court. This Court has also perused the provisions of the Section 70 of the Code and the said warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court, which issued it, or until it is executed. This Court has also perused the provisions of Sections 73 and 76 of the Code. But here it is a fact that in any case, in compoundable offences, non bailable warrant cannot be issued but initially even Investigating Officer has to issue a notice to the accused to remain present before him as provided under Section 160 of the Code which empowers the police officers to require attendance of any person before him though the word used in the Section is witness. In general, there is necessity to initially issue such notice and on non-compliance of such notice, bailable warrant and then only non-bailable warrant or otherwise police has got inherent power to inquiry from anybody, if there is sufficient evidence with him regarding commission of particular offence by any such person, for which order of warrant by judicial authority is not required at all.
Page 14 of 17HC-NIC Page 14 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
19. This Court has also perused the judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Narayan (Supra). This Court has also perused the judgment and order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.535 of 2016 filed by the applicant No.3 herein, on the identical issue i.e. in the said matter, the applicant No.3 has challenged the order dated 2.7.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamnagar, on the application filed by the Investigating Officer for issuance of arrest warrant in connection of the C.R. No.105 of 2016 registered with City "A" Division Police Station, Jamangar. In the said matter, the order passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside.
20. As per the submissions of learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati, the applicants are ready to surrender, by keeping right open for the Investigating Officer to make application for remand to the trial Court and the trial Court shall consider that application for remand in accordance with law. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin stated that if the applicants are ready to surrender before the trial Court or Investigating Officer, then the purpose of the investigation would be served.
21. So far as rights of the present applicants are concerned, they have right to file bail application before the trial Court and the Investigating Officer has right to obtain remand of the present applicants and therefore, the present applicants have to appear before the Investigating Officer. It also appears that the offences as alleged against the applicants, are very serious in nature, but just to protect their right of freedom and just to get legal remedy from the Courts of law, this Court is of the opinion that present applicants are required to give chance to appear before the Investigating Officer before arresting them Page 15 of 17 HC-NIC Page 15 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT in pursuance to the impugned order.
22. In view of above facts and circumstances and as per the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the applicants that the applicants are ready to surrender, then the impugned order dated 19.9.2016 for issuance of warrant, without serving notice or bailable warrant and that too in aid of investigation without direction to produce the accused before the appropriate Court, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar is hereby quashed and set aside but with following directions;
(i) The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of one week from today with prior intimation to the Investigating Officer. Such appearance shall be between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm during which Investigating Officer shall complete the investigation / interrogation of the case.
(ii) If at all, Investigating Officer requires the presence of applicants again on any other day, then, applicants shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer but only between 10.00 am and 6.00 pm.
(iii) Applicants can apply for bail before the competent Court and Investigating Officer can apply for police custody if he so desire.
In view the above directions, present application is partly Page 16 of 17 HC-NIC Page 16 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/895/2016 CAV JUDGMENT allowed. Interim relief granted earlier shall remain in force for a week from today and thereafter, same shall be vacated automatically. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) YNVYAS FURTHER ORDER:
After pronouncement of this judgment and order, learned advocate Mr. Premal Rachh requests to stay the order.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, request is rejected.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) YNVYAS Page 17 of 17 HC-NIC Page 17 of 17 Created On Thu Jan 26 02:00:53 IST 2017