Back
2023 Supreme(Guj) 262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
VIJAYBHAI NATWARLAL MEHTA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 944 of 2005, Criminal Revision Application No. 279 of 2006
Decided On : 07-02-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : NANDISH THAKKAR.
For the Respondents: KHALID G. SHAIKH, R.C. KODEKAR.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Special Court to consider all relevant materials and investigations carried out by both the CBI and ACB before passing any order, in compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - CBI Investigation - Sections 375, IPC - Special Leave Petitions No. 6481/2001 to 6486/2001 - ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad City - Special Judge, CBI Court - Closure Report of CBI - Special Criminal Application - Special Court - Cr.P.C. - Hon’ble Supreme Court - Special Leave Petition - Special Criminal Application - Special Court - Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved Criminal Revision Applications arising from a common judgment and order dated 29.08.2005. The applications were filed by the accused and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the judgment passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court, Ahmedabad in several special cases. The CBI had recommended closure of the case, but the Special Court rejected the report and directed all accused to appear for further proceedings of charge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Special Court had failed to comply with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by not considering the Closure Report of CBI and documents produced in support of the same. The court also noted that the Special Court did not consider all relevant materials produced by the Investigating Agency, as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Issues: The issues included the compliance of the Special Court with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the consideration of reports and investigations by both the CBI and ACB, and the proper application of the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Special Court had erred in not considering the reports and investigations carried out by both the CBI and ACB before passing the impugned order. It emphasized the need for the Special Court to consider all relevant materials and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law and without being influenced by any previous orders.
Final Decision: The matter was remitted back to the concerned Special Court with directions to consider both the investigations carried out by both agencies before passing any order. The Special Court was given three months to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the law and without being influenced by any previous orders. The Criminal Revision Applications were disposed of, clarifying that the Court had not examined the merits of the matter.
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
1. Both the Revision Applications arise out of the common judgment and order dated 29.08.2005 and hence, they are being heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
2. The Criminal Revision Application No. 944 of 2005 is filed by the applicant-Vijaybhai Natwarlal Mehta (original accused No. 7) and the Criminal Revision Application No. 279 of 2006 is filed by the applicant-Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the common judgment and order dated 29.08.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in Special Case Nos.56 of 1995, 50 of 1996, 53 of 1996, 56 of 1996, 20 of 1996 and 5 of 1998, whereby the Special Judge, CBI Court had observed as under:
“This report filed by Central Bureau of Investigation stating that there is no case against the accused persons, is hereby rejected. All the accused persons are directed to appear before this Court on the next adjourned date for further proceedings of charge. In view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Spl. Leave Petitions No. 6481/2001 to 6486/2001, the right of the accused of being heard for charge is required to be protected. Therefore, the accused to be heard for charge.”
3. Brief facts leading to the Criminal Revision Application No. 944 of 2005 filed by the applicant-original accused are that, the original complainant had lodged the FIR being C.R. No. 20/1995 with ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad City against 7 accused persons including the present applicant. The present applicant was not named in the FIR but during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had arraigned the present applicant as accused No. 7 in the charge-sheet filed in the Court of Ld. Special Judge, Ahmedabad.
3.1 Brief facts leading to the Criminal Revision Application No. 279 of 2006 filed by the CBI are that, on the basis of complaint of Miss Bijal Revashankar Joshi dated 03.08.1995, 04.08.1995 and 5.8.1995, Shri N.K. Purohit, Deputy Director, Anti Corruption Bureau of Ahmedabad registered a case vide Cr. No. 20/95 against Peerzada Saiyed Moiyuddin, Rauf, Tiger, Nadir Ali, Salim Khan Pathan, Jethabhai Bharwad and V. Kannu Pillai.
3.2 After completion of investigation of Crime No. 20/95 the Investigating Officer filed six charge-sheets in the Court of City Special Judge, Ahmedabad against 12 accused persons On 02.01.1997, learned Special Judge, Court No. 11 framed the charges against the aforesaid 12 accused persons and all the charge sheets were clubbed together. Against the framing of charges, three accused persons filed Special Criminal Application No. 12/97, 17/97 and 18/97 before this Court.
3.3 On the basis of the various representations submitted by accused - V. Kannu Pillai, the Government of Gujarat ordered further investigation by CID (Crime) on 13.02.1997. That against the order dated 13.02.1997, the complainant filed Special Criminal Application No. 204/1997 before this Court seeking direction against the State Government not to entrust further investigation to the State CID (Crime).
3.4 After hearing the matter, this Court vide order dated 28.02.1997 directed the CBI for further Investigation more particularly on the points on which the State Government had directed further investigation by the State CID (Crime). That on the basis of the order of this Court, CBI SCB, Mumbai registered case No. RC.2/S/97-Mum on the basis of same FIR. The CBI submitted complete final investigation report before this Court.
3.5 After accused Shri Nadir Ali, Salim Khan Pathan, Javed Khan Pathan and Yusuf Khan Pathan were released on bail by the Special Judge, Court No. 3, Criminal Misc. Application No. 371/98 filed by the Shri K.V. Joseph, DGP, Gujarat for making him party/respondent in the matter of investigation report filed by CBI, was rejected by this Court.
3.6 That Criminal Misc. Application No. 390/98 filed by Shri Kuldeep Sharma, Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Gujarat for making him party/respondent In the matter
