DHIRENDRA NATVARLAL SANGHPAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Group of Revision Applications are preferred by different petitioners accused against the common order of rejection of an application praying discharge under section 227 of CrPC by ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.8, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad dated 08.09.2004 in Sessions Case No. 178/2004. The petitioners of all the Revision Applications are shown as an accused in the crime registered with Meghaninagar Police Station being CR.No. I.26/2004 for the offences punishable under various sections of Indian Penal code. Petitioner of Cri. Rev. Application No. 655/2004 Dhirendra Natwarlal Sanghpal -original accused No.2 has preferred application exh.7 praying discharge. Similarly, the petitioner of Cri. Revision Application No. 656/2004 Kanubhai Ramjibhai Solanki- original accused No.3 has preferred application exh.6 praying discharge and petitioner of Cri. Revision Application No. 657/2004 -original accused No.1 has preferred application exh.6 praying discharge. All of them have prayed that they should be discharged from the offence punishable under section 397 of IPC. Ld. Counsel Mr. JR Dave appears for the petitioner of Cri. Rev. Application No. 655/2004. Ld. Counsel Mr. Ashish M.Dagli appears for the petitioner of Cri. Rev. Application No. 656/2004 and ld. Counsel Mr. Y.S. Lakhani appears for the petitioner of Cri. Rev. application No. 657/2004. Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners in this group of Revision Applications have taken this Court through the nature of allegations made in the complaint as well as through the papers of investigation received by them along with chargesheet. However, ultimately, all of them have concentrated their arguments that the ld. Trial Judge at least ought to have discharged the petitioners accused from the charge for the offence punishable under section 397 of IPC because there is no element of evidence, even prima facie, to show that the offence under section 397 of IPC was ever intended or has been committed by any of the petitioners accused.

(2.) Ld. APP Mr. NC Sood appearing for the State has argued at length and has taken this Court through the case pleaded by the prosecution and gravity of the offence committed in a court compound and the sensitivity attached to the crime and submitted that there is no merit in any of the Revision Applications and accused persons have been rightly asked by the ld. Trial Judge to face the charge for which they have been chargesheeted by the investigating agency including the charge for the offence punishable under section 397 of IPC.

(3.) I have gone through the order under challenge passed by the ld. Trial Judge and in response to the query raised by the Court, it is jointly submitted that all these Revision Applications, if are disposed of by the common judgment as the points at issue involved is similar and they are arising out of the same order and that too arising out of one crime i.e. CR No. I.26/2004 registered with Meghaninagar Police Station. Hence, this group of Revision Applications have been heard jointly and are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.