DILIPBHAI JIVABHAI KATARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these four applications are on the same issue and against same impugned order and, therefore, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) PRACTICALLY , for all the applicants only one set of arguments have been advanced by learned senior counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavati. Whereas, for private respondents, since four revision applications are there, different senior counsels have without overlapping their submissions submitted different issues and learned Public Prosecutor Mr. H.L. Jani has argued on behalf of the State. The impugned order in all the revision applications is dated 20.07.2013 below Exh. 8 in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2013 by Sessions Judge, Porbandar. Such application was filed by appellant being original accused No. 4 in such appeal, u/s. 389 of the Cr.P.C. to stay his conviction in Criminal Case No. 11258 of 2006 and Criminal Case No. 117 of 2008 confirmed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar. The appellant before the Sessions Court is challenging such conviction and, therefore, when sentence is stayed by granting bail, the appellant has also prayed for staying the order of conviction.

(3.) THOUGH the fact are known to all, it would be appropriate to recollect that respondent No. 2 is at present sitting M.L.A. and Minister of the State of Gujarat. However, pursuant to FIR No. 83 of 2006 dated 5.10.2006 u/ss. 447, 379 and 114 of the IPC, a chargesheet was filed against him and in Criminal Case No. 117 of 2008 initiated from such FIR and chargesheet, ultimately, he was convicted by the C.J.M., Porbandar. In her judgment dated 15.6.2013, C.J.M., Porbandar had convicted respondent No. 2 herein with three other accused and awarded imprisonment of three years and penalty of Rs. 5000/ - for committing the offence u/s. 379 of the IPC. The hue and cry of the petitioners are therefore to the effect that only because respondent No. 2 is sitting M.L.A. and Minister of the State, though he has committed an offence as aforesaid, and though he is convicted by the competent Court, the Sessions Court has openly helped accused No. 2 in staying his conviction by allowing his application at Exh. 8 and that State being prosecuting agency instead of opposing such application, openly supported the accused in getting his application allowed before the Sessions Court. It is further alleged that same attitude has been continued in the present revision application when State is instead of supporting petitioners, supports respondent No. 2.