Gujarat High Court
Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani vs State Of Gujarat on 13 July, 2021
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
R/SCR.A/5543/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5543 of 2021
==========================================================
DILEEPBHAI NANUBHAI SANGHANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ND NANAVATY, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR RH
RUPARELIYA(6212) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS.NEHA R RUPARELIYA(6361) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MITESH AMIN, PP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 13/07/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavaty assisted by learned advocate Mr.Rupareliya for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Amin assisted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Devnani for the respondent-State.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`the Code' for short) challenging the order dated 12.3.2021 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar passed below application Exhs.93,94,95 and 96 in Special ACB Case No.4 of 2015, whereby the concerned trial Court has rejected the discharge application filed by the petitioner under Section 245 of the Code.
3. Learned senior counsel has referred to the various documents including the deposition given by the complainant as well as Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 14 07:31:17 IST 2021 R/SCR.A/5543/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/07/2021 four other witnesses i.e. police officers. The said depositions were recorded by the concerned trial Court in the private complaint filed by the complainant before framing of the charge. From the material placed on record, it is contended that prima facie, ingredients of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7,8,13(1)(A), 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not made out. In fact, the private complaint was filed by the complainant only against one accused wherein the present petitioner was not named as an accused. It is further submitted that even as per the case of the complainant and the witnesses- Investigating Officers who have investigated the matter under Section 202 of the Code, there is no material that the petitioner has gained any monetary benefit from the alleged transaction. It is, therefore, urged that there is no material against the present petitioner and therefore the impugned order passed by the trial Court be stayed.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has also referred the various documents which are placed on record, however, learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the fact that the present petitioner has not gained any monetary benefit out of the alleged transaction.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, issue involved in the present petition requires consideration. Hence, Rule returnable on 11.10.2021. Learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent-State. Till next date of hearing, ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 20(c) is granted qua the petitioner only.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) SRILATHA Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 14 07:31:17 IST 2021