D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision the order of Special Judge, Ahmedabad allowing the application of the accused no. 3, who is respondent in this revision, is under challenge.

( 2 ) THE said accused moved an application under sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for being discharged, inasmuch as, there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against him. The C. B. I. registered a case under secs. 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 13 (2) read with sec. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against five persons including the respondent. However, Harshad P. Mehta and Smt. HH Hingorani were not sent up for trial. Only three persons including the respondent were sent up for trial. The case of the respondent was that, there is no material or evidence against him on which he can be proceeded.

( 3 ) THE application was resisted in the trial Court by the C. B. I. , and after considering the material on record and submissions made by the respondent and the C. B. I. , the trial Judge found that the respondent was not directly involved in the alleged offence, hence, he deserves to be discharged. Accordingly, he was discharged.

( 4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document