KARTIK PAREKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. By this application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 20.4.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Court-II, Ahmedabad in C.B.I Criminal Revision Application No.4 of 2012 as well as order dated 22.3.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special C.B.I. Court No.2, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1 of 2012 and further seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to handover the passport for a period of three months, that is, up to 31.7.2012 in order to enable the petitioner to travel to U.K. and U.S.A. for medical checkup and treatment.

(2.) The applicant herein filed an application being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1 of 2012 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special C.B.I. Court No.2, Ahmedabad (Rural) seeking return of the applicant''s passport as well as permission to visit U.K., U.S.A and United Arab Emirates for a period of six months from 1.3.2012 to 31.8.2012 for the purpose of medical treatment. By an order dated 22.3.2012, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate disallowed the application mainly on the ground that the charge has not yet been framed and as per the directions of this Court, the trial is to be completed within a specified period. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed a revision application before the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.) at Ahmedabad City under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, who by the impugned order dated 20.4.2012, rejected the application mainly on the ground that the High Court has directed to expedite the matter and, as such, there should not be any order of the subordinate court which may cause delay in the execution of the direction of the High Court.

(3.) Mr. Saurin A. Shah, learned advocate for the applicant invited the attention of the Court to the facts of the case to submit that the applicant herein was initially suffering from Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc, for which he was initially given conservative treatment in the year 2002 but since the treatment was not sufficient, he came to be operated for Laminectomy Disectomy-L5-S1. During the course of treatment, Cholecystitis was diagnosed whereby Laproscopic Cholecystectomy operation came to be performed. Since the treatment over the years did not show any improvement in his health, the applicant made an application before the concerned court in May 2010 for return of passport, pursuant to which the passport came to be handed over to him with permission to travel to U.S.A. and U.K. for treatment but unfortunately at the relevant time, the applicant could not procure a U.S.A. visa. Subsequently, the applicant has been diagnosed to be suffering from Moderately Differentiated Adenocarcinoma of Splenic flexure of Colon with involvement of surrounding fat and mesenteric nodes whereby on 6.6.2011 he had to undergo a surgery, that is, Exploratory Laporotomy with subtotal colectomy with ileo-descending anastomosis at Bhatia Hospital. He was again admitted to Breach Candy Hospital in July 2011 on account of non-healing of wound over abdomen. In September 2011, the applicant came to be diagnosed to be suffering from Colon Cancer and was given Chemotherapy treatment on several occasions. Apart from the ongoing treatment, by way of further course of action as regards the treatment to be given to the applicant, it was essential for him to be examined by the experts based at U.S.A. and U.K. Hence, the above referred application came to be filed, seeking permission to travel to U.S.A. and U.K. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the main ground for rejecting the application is that this Court has directed that the trial be expedited and be completed within a fixed time schedule. It was submitted that in the present case, two of the co-accused have been discharged by the trial court, in respect of which, revision applications are pending before the Sessions Court and moreover two discharge applications are pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Court No.2, Ahmedabad (Rural). Unless the same are decided, the question of framing charge and proceeding further with the trial would not arise. It was submitted that under the circumstances, the refusal to grant permission on the ground that the trial had been expedited by this Court is unwarranted. It was, accordingly, urged that considering the nature of illness which the applicant is suffering from, it is necessary for him to obtain treatment at U.S.A. Under the circumstances, the applicant be permitted to go abroad till 31.7.2012.