Point of law : Since pronouncement of the judgment of Hon'ble Court may not be within the knowledge of the court below since there was no occasion to cite the same before the learned Judge and as such with a view to arrive at a just decision at least by quashing and setting aside the impugned order.

ORDER :

[1] By way of present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicant - original complainant has challenged the legality and validity of an order dated 11.03.2020 passed below Exh.26 in ACB Case No.1 of 2006 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi.

[2] The brief facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the applicant - original complainant has lodged an FIR being C.R.No.9 of 2005 registered with with ACB Police Station, Rajkot on 02.09.2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 1, 2 and 3 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against two accused persons named as one Pratapsinh Verubha Rana, Police Head Constable, Morbi Police Station and another Mr.M.F.Jadav, Police Inspector, Morbi City Police Station inter alia demanding bribe from the applicant by making conversation with accused No.2 and a demand of Rs.9,000/- was made. Pursuant to the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against one of the accused person namely Pratapsinh Verubha Rana under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 whereas no charge-sheet was filed against Mr.M.F.Jadav, Police Inspector, Morbi Police Station.

[2.1] It is the case of the applicant that to the best of knowledge alongwith the charge-sheet no final report or any summary or any report under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. came to be filed against accused No.2 i.e Mr.M.F.Jadav, Police Inspector, who is specifically named in the FIR and further at no point of time, the applicant - original complainant was given any opportunity to submit protest application for non filing of charge-sheet against him. Since, the case is triable by the Special Court, the same is committed to the Special Court and was registered as ACB Case No.1 of 2006 and after charge having been framed, the examination of witnesses have commenced.

[2.2] It is further the case of the applicant that as per the prosecution witness, the applicant herein who is examined as P.W.1 in which his chief examination is recorded and is in progress. The chief examination came to be recorded on 22.02.2011 and in which not only in the FIR specific accusation was leveled against another accused Mr.M.F.Jadav, Police Inspector but even in chief examination of the applicant involvement of accused No.2 Mr.M.F.Yadav, Police Inspector has been surfaced. Accordingly, an application was submitted at Exh.26 before the concerned Court in view of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. on 29.04.2011 for joining Mr.M.F.Jadav, Police Inspector as additional accused. However, the said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2020 mainly on the premise that at that stage of the proceedings no powers desirable to be exercised under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. During the course of hearing, an application below Exh.27 was submitted by the retired Dy.S.P. on 26.08.2011 submitting remarks and vide Exh.36 an objection was raised by accused No.2 i.e. Mr.M.F.Jadav, Police Inspector that though he was named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted and the written objection was submitted on 23.04.2012 and later on, the impugned order is passed on 11.03.2020 which is the subject matter of present Criminal Revision Application.

[3] Pursuant to the Rule having been issued by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 10.06.2021, after examining the matter from time to time, the same has come up for consideration before this Court finally in which Mr.Ashish M.Dagli, learned advocate appearing for the applicant whereas Mr.J.K.Shah, learned APP is appearing on behalf of the respondent State. With these background, the Court has heard the matter.

[4] Mr.Ashish M.Dagli, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently contended that accused No.2 i.e. Mr.M.F.Jadav, Police Inspector then was a specifically named in the FIR there are specific assertion in the complaint qua him but s