HIMANSHU BIPINCHANDRA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has challenged the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2016 below Exh. 212 in Special ACB Case No. 1 of 2014 by Special Judge (ACB) and 5th Additional Sessions Judge of Surat whereby the Sessions Judge has while allowing the application of the prosecution under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code directed that the present petitioner should be tried in such pending case for the offences punishable under sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under sections 213, 214, 217 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. It is further directed by the Sessions Court to issue summons to the petitioner to appear before the Court on 28th July, 2016, though, prosecution has asked for issuance of warrant against the petitioner, in that case the petitioner could have been arrested and required to apply for bail. Thereby, the Sessions Court has instead of issuing warrant as requested by the prosecution, issued a summons.

(2.) Sum and substance of the application at Exh. 212 by the prosecution is to the effect that the petitioner was having an amount of Rs. 4 crores in his possession, which was recovered from his house, for which panchnama was drawn during the investigation and, therefore, when an amount of bribe which was subject matter of the allegation against the main accused was recovered from the petitioner in part out of the total amount of Rs. 7 crores as an amount of bribe to be paid to several persons so as to let go the case against the main accused Narayan Sai, who is arrested for different offences under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act and who was having deep roots in several criminal activities including activities of his father Asharam Bapu who is also facing the charges under section 376 etc. and thereby, both are in prison for the last couple of years.

(3.) The Trial Court has considered the rival submissions and came to the conclusion from the available record before it, that when the recovery panchnama of the huge amount of Rs. 4 crores is proved on record and thereby, when there is no scope of panch witnesses becoming hostile who have categorically confirmed the prosecution case and prove the panchnama, it becomes clear that the petitioner was holding huge amount i.e. Rs. 4 crores which is reported to be used for offering bribe to all concerned in the case of Narayan Sai. Therefore, the Sessions Court has considered that now, there is prima facie evidence, against the petitioner and that it would be appropriate to prosecute him with other accused of the same case and hence, he was required to be added as an accused. Therefore, such application is allowed.