BHAGWAN SESHAIAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11th January, 2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Vadodara, below Exh.20 in Criminal Case No.1398/1997 as well as the order dated 14 th March, 2006 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Revision Application No.68/2006 and seeks quashment of the charge-sheet dated 7th May, 1999 as well as Criminal Case No.1398/1997 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Vadodara qua the present petitioner.

(2.) THE respondent No.2 filed a first information report which came to be registered as Navapura Police Sub-station, District Vadodara I ­ C.R. No.73/1996 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 34, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against several named accused. Subsequently, it appears that during the course of investigation, the petitioner's name also came to be revealed. Accordingly, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet.

(3.) MR . Jinesh Kapadia, learned advocate for Mr. Ashish Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the statement of one Nagraj Narayanraj (K. Nagraj) which came to be recorded on 9 th October, 1996 wherein he had stated that he was the District Manager of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. and that he had taken charge as District Manager from 9th July, 1993. It was submitted that the said witness has also stated that prior to his taking charge, the petitioner herein was the District Manager from 21 st July, 1988 to 9th July, 1993 at Ahmedabad and that thereafter he had been transferred. The learned advocate submitted that the offence in question has taken place between 19 th October, 1993 to 10th October, 1994 and that at the relevant time when the alleged offence is stated to have been committed, the petitioner was already transferred and was no longer holding the post of Manager at Ahmedabad. It was, accordingly, submitted that in the light of the statement of the District Manager, the petitioner was required to be discharged from the offence alleged and as such, both the courts below had erred in rejecting the petitioner's application.