PATEL PRAHLADBHAI MOHANLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the FIR bearing CR No. I 32 of 2015 registered with Visnagar City Police Station, Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 465, 468, 471, 114 and 120B of the IPC and under Sections 2(c), 8 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) Heard Mr.Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. He has contended that applicant was elected Member of Legislative Assembly for two terms. Because of his affiliation to public life, there are political rivals also. The applicant was elected as Chairman of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Visnagar, for about 12 years. Since when the applicant was denied ticket for a Legislative Assembly election by the ruling party, the applicant resigned from the party membership and contested election against the official candidate of a ruling political party as an independent candidate, since then the applicant is harassed by filing false and frivolous complaints to finish his political career.

(3.) He has contended that prior to filing of the present FIR under Section 44 of the Act the Director issued a show cause notice holding an inquiry into the affairs of Marketing Committee, Visnagar. The said inquiry as per the information of the applicant concluded prior to filing of the FIR. As such the present first informant i.e. Dy. Director and District Registrar, Mehsana had conducted the said inquiry. No material which is now sought to be projected against the applicant for denying him an anticipatory bail is found by the said first informant in an inquiry under Section 44 of the Act. He has contended that APMC is an autonomous body constituted under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963 and is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and it is held to be competent to clear, hold, lease, sell or otherwise transfer property in lieu of Section 10 of the Act. He has contended that when the Market Committee being an autonomous body corporate having its independent identity, is empowered to sell its property provided under the statute itself, no circular or guidelines can restrict the powers of the Committee. For breach of any provisions of circular or guidelines, the Committee or its members can be proceeded against under the provisions of the Act. Beyond that no circular or guidelines can take away the statutory provisions made in the Act. In any case, no criminal prosecution could have been launched for breach of certain directions enumerated in circulars or guidelines.