Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sandip Manharbhai Parmar on 8 July, 2019
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
R/CR.RA/680/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 680 of 2019
==================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SANDIP MANHARBHAI PARMAR
==================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP (2) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 08/07/2019
ORAL ORDER
[1.0.] The State has preferred this revision application challenging the order passed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.B, Court No.17, Ahmedabad dated 12.04.2019 rejecting the Police custody remand application submitted by the Investigating Officer into offence registered at C.R.No.I-09 of 2019 with A.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad City.
[2.0.] As per the prosecution case, for renewal of license with regard to labour contract, the respondents-accused demanded Rs.45,000/- from the first informant, who is Manager in that labour contract company. Pursuant to the said complaint, a trap was laid and in presence of independent panch witness, phenolphthalein powder smeared notes of Rs.35,000/- was accepted by the accused No.2 at the instance of accused No.1. Therefore, it is alleged that accused have committed an offence under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). After trap was over, panchnama drawn, FIR is registered, Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:58:52 IST 2019 R/CR.RA/680/2019 ORDER the Investigating Officer arrested the respondents-accused and the investigating Officer, by remand application dated 12.04.2019 sought for police custody remand for both the accused on the ground mentioned in it.
[3.0.] Main thrust of the reason for seeking police custody remand is conducting phishing inquiry into the properties of the respondents-accused. Looking at the FIR, it is clear that there is no case of the prosecution that the respondents-accused have amassed wealth disproportionate, even prima-facie, to his known source of income. The intention of the investigating officer is, not appearing to be genuine. However, for an offence committed either under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1) (d) of the said Act, the offence is complete as soon as demand made, amount of bribe accepted and it has been recovered. Practically investigation is over as soon as amount of bribe is recovered from the accused. It is only for want of sanction, immediately charge sheet cannot be submitted and other peripheral investigation cannot be concluded and it goes on.
[4.0.] Under the circumstances, there cannot be any prayer for police custody remand of the accused so far as prosecution case relates to either Sections 7, 12 and 13(1) of the said Act. I am in full agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge, A.C.B., Court No.17, Ahmedabad while rejecting the application of remand filed by the Investigating Officer. Hence there is no substance in this revision application and it is rejected.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J) Lalji Desai Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:58:52 IST 2019