DALPATSINH @ DS SHERSINH RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition was heard on 28.02.2013. The petitioner was required to ascertain the dates on which he was detained and released under Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act. It was submitted by that learned counsel for the petitioner that he was detained under the aforesaid law after filing of the chargesheet in the present case and therefore, the ground that because petitioner was detained under PASA, he was not absconding and that, in the chargesheet wrong endorsement was made is not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petition was moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.PC) with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner merely on the basis of statement made by co-accused who has subsequently been discharged by the Court below.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to various cases and in particular Ishwarlal Naranbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat in indicate that almost under similar circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were sought to be sustained on the basis of the statement of co-accused alone. In Para 8, the Court noticed the fact that investigation was incomplete and also after examining other documents on record, quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner there. In the instant case also, admittedly, except the statement of co-accused, there is no other material available with the respondent. Further it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that in February 2005 i.e. after filing of the chargesheet in the present case on 26.07.2004, the petitioner was arrested in criminal case no. 5022/2004 and was detained in custody until April 2004 when he came to be detained under PASA until he was released by this Court on 09.05.2005. It was submitted that if the respondent had a bonafide intention to investigate the case against the petitioner, they could have investigated or inquired from the petitioner when he was already in custody. It was submitted that now the petitioner is well settled in his business of import and export and the relevant documents in support of such case are produced on record. It was submitted that if at all the presence of petitioner was necessary and case was required to be investigated which could have been effectively done while he was in custody as above and stretching the case now after a period of more than 9 years and that too when the petitioner is well settled in his business would rather cause prejudice to the petitioner and therefore, it was submitted that it was such belated action on the part of the respondent, may not be encouraged.