Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.
Bhagwandas @ Pappu S/O Sureshchandra Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Revision Application No. 1576 of 2019
Decided on : 27-07-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 397 ,227, 401 – Power of revision - Whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice - whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge - whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not - whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated - opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied –
Finding of the Court:
It emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely - The Judge cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouth- piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the statements and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on - stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with the presumption that material brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate such material with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose existence of the ingredients of the offence –
Result: Criminal Revision DISMISSED.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of an order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad dated 29.8.2019, whereby the application submitted under Section 227of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be dismissed while passing an order below Exh.2 in Sessions Case No.423 of 2018.
2. The case of the petitioner is that with respect to the incident in question, occurred on 14.7.2011, at 14.15 hrs, on the public road, near Madrasi Mandir, Hatkeshwar, Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad, for which a complaint is lodged, being C.R.No.I-310 of 201l filed by one Rajesh @ Raju Rameshbhai Kamle (Marathi) lodged before Amraiwadi Police Station, Ahmedabad city for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Pursuant to the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against one Mr. Nikhilsing, alias Kancho, alias Raj Harshadbhai Vaghela and then the case was registered as Sessions Case No.274 of 2012. Simultaneously, the police also filed charge-sheet against three other persons, namely Satyendra Mahendrabhai Jain, Vijay Rajendrabhai Sharma and Sonu Bhagwandas, alias Paki Agrawal and the case was registered as Sessions Judge No.275 of 2012. The police also filed a chargesheet against one juvenile delinquent Balbirsing, alias Kalu Hanumansinh Rajavat in the Juvenile Court. The said two cases namely Sessions Case No.274 of 2012 as well as Sessions Case No.275 of 2012 tried before the Sessions Court for the aforesaid offences against those respective accused persons and by giving benefit of doubt, an order of acquittal came to be passed vide judgment and order dated 22.7.2014. According to the petitioner, in the said judgment, at page 68 operative part, it is mentioned that it is not certain whether trial of the juvenile is disposed of or not and moreover, it is also mentioned that absconding accused Bhagwandas @ Pappu, S/o. Sureshchandra Agrawal, i.e. present petitioner, could not be arrested and so muddamal of the case was ordered to be preserved in the same position.
3. According to the petitioner, it is after that, Amraiwadi police arrested the petitioner on 10.11.2017 at around 23.15 hrs. and produced him before Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad City, who remanded the custody and later on, granted bail to the petitioner by passing an order in Criminal Misc. Application (Regular Bail) No.1915 of 2018. It is the further case of the petitioner that present petitioner has no connection with the alleged incident in question which took place on 14.7.2011, still unjustifiably, the petitioner came to be arrested and after completion of the investigation, supplementary chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad city and the criminal case was registered as Criminal Case No.19714 of 2017.
4. It is the assertion of the petitioner that upon filing of the supplementary charge-sheet, there was no iota of evidence/ material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. As a result of this, upon committal of the case to the Sessions Judge, an application was submitted under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking discharge and such application was filed in Sessions Case No.423 of 2018 below Exh.2. The said application after hearing the parties came to be rejected by an order dated 29.8.2019, which is made the subject matter of the present criminal revision application.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Satish Pandya appearing for Mr. Rajesh Agrawal for the petitioner has vehemently contended that learned Court below has committed a grave error in rejecting the application, despite the fact that after approximately six years, the petitioner came to be arrested and during that time of six years, four accused persons were alr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
