SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned APP Mr. KP Raval waives service of rule for respondent No. 1-State and learned advocate Mr. Apurva Kapadia for respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner-original accused under Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India and also under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the prayer that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to quash and set aside the order in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/96 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions judge, Khambhaliya, Dist. Jamnagar, dated 15.7.2011. It is also prayed that pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, all proceedings (emphasis supplied) arising out of C.R. No. I-102/90 registered at Jam-jodhpur Police Station may be stayed in the interest of justice, on the grounds stated in the memo of petition, inter alia, that it is politically motivated and only to cause harassment the decision has been taken.

(3.) IT is contended that the decision was taken by the Government in 1996 to challenge the order passed by the JMFC dated 20.12.1995 taking cognizance against the petitioner and other officers and pursuant thereto the revision also was filed which created a right in favour of the petitioner and other police officers for defending them with regard to any act committed by them during the time of controlling the riots. IT is therefore contended that it created a vested right and any direction or communication for withdrawal of the said revision without any reasons is mala fide. IT is contended that by the said communication, the right of defence created by the Government Resolution in favour of the petitioner and other police officers got extinguished and therefore the decision is bad. IT is also contended that at the relevant time the State Government refused to grant sanction under sec. 197 of CrPC read with sec. 161 of the Bombay Police Act and when the Government was of the opinion that the alleged act committed were in discharge of the official duties, the Government cannot now be permitted to change the stand. IT is contended that cognizance was wrongly taken by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, which is challenged in the aforesaid revision, which cannot be permitted now by the State Government to be withdrawn. IT is also contended that as the petitioner has deposed against the Chief Minister, the Chief Minister is trying to put pressure to stop him from deposing before the authority or the court which has led to this decision and therefore it is mala fide.