Gujarat High Court
Vitthalbhai Motibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 17 April, 2017
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/SCR.A/9911/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 9911 of 2016
================================================================
VITTHALBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK A DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 17/04/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. By this writapplication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: "a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit this petition.
b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of and in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, for setting aside the order passed by Ld. Principal Sessions Court, Surendranagar dated 22nd November 2016 below Exhibit7 in Special (ACB) Case No.1 of 2016 and be pleased to Discharge Petitioner from the all charges levelled against him in the interest of Justice.
c) Pending admission and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the Special (ACB) Case No.1 of 2016 pending before Ld. Principal Sessions Judge, Surendranagar.
d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant adinterim relief in terms of prayer (c) above.
Page 1 of 3
HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Aug 16 00:27:21 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/9911/2016 ORDER
e) To pass such other and further orders as are necessary in the interest of Justice."
2. The principal argument of the learned counsel appearing for the writapplicant original accused is that despite the fact that the entire investigation was completed, the chargesheet was not filed till the time, the writapplicant retired from service. According to the learned counsel, if the chargesheet would have been filed at an appropriate time then the Investigating Officer would have to pray for sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Since the writ applicant retired from service there was no need thereafter to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the Act for the purpose of taking cognizance.
3. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor informs that the charge sheet could not be filed as the Investigation Officer awaited the FSL report regarding the voice spectrography test.
4. On receipt of the FSL report, the Investigating Officer, immediately, filed the chargesheet, however, by that time the writ Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Wed Aug 16 00:27:21 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/9911/2016 ORDER applicant had retired from the service. I need not go into this issue at this stage as it is a disputed question of fact. It will be open for the writapplicant to take up this issue before the Trial Court.
5. In view of the above, this writ application is not pressed by Mr. Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant.
6. With the above, this writapplication stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Manoj Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Aug 16 00:27:21 IST 2017