RAJENDRAKUMAR MANILAL JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nisarg Shah for learned Advocate Mr. N. M. Kapadia on behalf of the applicant and learned APP Ms. M. D. Mehta on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) By way of this application, the applicant prays for quashing of Criminal Complaint being C. R. No. III-814 of 2014 registered with the Gandevi Police Station, Dist. Navsari on 29/12/2014 for offences punishable under Ss. 66(1)b, 65AE, 116(2), 81, 98 and 99 of Gujarat Prohibition Act and Criminal Case No. 231 of 2015 arising from the impugned FIR pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandevi, Dist. Panchmahal.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Shah on behalf of the applicant would submit that while the applicant is not named in the FIR, after the investigation, since the petitioner had been named in the charge sheet, he had preferred the present application inter alia questioning the same, more particularly, according to the learned Advocate Mr. Shah the present applicant has been roped in just to on basis of statements of co-accused, more particularly, learned Advocate Mr. Shah submitting that even from the charge sheet the role attributed to the present applicant being that he was the principal purchaser of the prohibited goods in question. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would further point out that while the charge sheet inter alia listed as such, later on, before this Court, the stand taken by the Investigating Officer was that the present applicant was the person, who had acted as a navigator for the truck in question and whereas it is for such reason that the applicant has been arraigned as an accused in connection with the impugned FIR. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would submit that as such, there is no material in the charge sheet, to support either the allegation of the applicant being the principal purchaser of the accused or the applicant having piloted the truck in which the prohibited goods was being taken. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would therefore submit that the impugned FIR and all further proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed by this Court.