KANJIBHAI KESHARBHAI DODIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant herein was named as one of the three accused in the First Information Report registered with Talaja Police Station, Bhavnagar on 2nd August, 2010 in respect of offences under Section 465, Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was working as Assistant General Manager at the Head Office at Ahmedabad of Gujarat State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). The commission of offence was alleged in the context of allegation about tampering and interpolation of election record in respect of elections to Talaja Branch of the Bank. He filed application below Exhibit 5 in Criminal Case No.29 of 2011 registered against him, praying for his discharge. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talaja by order dated 17th October, 2012. The aggrieved applicant has filed the present Revision Application against the said order.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary and relevant may be summarised first. In the election to the representatives of 176 Branches of the Bank, in the list of candidates of Talaja Branch, one of the names was interpolated. It appears from the documents on the record that six members were declared elected uncontested as representatives of Talaja Branch. The list showing their names was published by the District Manager of the Bank, Bhavnagar. One of the candidates viz. Jorsangbhai Dansangbhai Parmar, expired on 20th October, 2009. In place of the said expired person, name of one Jivabhai Shamjibhai Bhadarka was inserted. Said Jivabhai had earlier sought to contest but had finally withdrawn candidature. The list published on 11th November, 2009 was interpolated and in place of said deceased person, name of Jivabhai Bhadarka was managed to be inserted. A copy of the said list was forwarded to District Manager, Bhavnagar and Managing Director at Ahmedabad.

(3.) HEARD learned advocate Mr.Dharmesh Shah for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.L.R. Pujari for the respondent-State. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there is no material which could connect the present applicant with the offence alleged. It was submitted that he was Assistant General Manager at the Head Office of the Bank at Ahmedabad and had no role to play in preparing the list of candidates to be the representatives of that particular Branch. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to see only prima-facie aspects of the matter and the case is not required to be seen in the sense of law governing trial of criminal case. It was submitted that the Court is not required to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or that the trial would end up with conviction or not.