PATEL JETHABHAI MANJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions have been filed by the original accused of Sessions Case Nos. 35 of 2003 and 25 of 2004, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra, for appropriate writ, order and/or directions directing the respondent No. 3 Public Prosecutor to submit the details provided to him by State Government about withdrawal of both the Sessions Cases pending against the petitioners, as on the basis of such instructions, similar cases including Criminal Case No. 117 of 2003, filed against the similarly situated farmers for the offences alleged to have been committed during the agitation against shortage of electricity, have been withdrawn.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that due to shortage of electricity, there was agitation by the farmers and for that, offences have been registered against many farmers but thereafter, the State Government has taken a policy decision to withdraw all such cases. He has submitted that in Criminal Case No. 1171 of 2003, an application was made by the learned Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the prosecution in view of policy decision of the State Government, and the said case was permitted to be withdrawn by the trial court and the said case has been disposed of by the trial court accordingly. He has submitted that in the cases of the petitioners the concerned Public Prosecutor had submitted applications to the concerned court on 10/4/2005 in view of the policy decision of the State Government for withdrawal of the cases pending against the petitioners, requesting to grant permission for the aforesaid two cases and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra passed order directing the Dy.Collector to produce relevant decision of the State Government for withdrawal of the prosecution. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the said material was sent to the concerned Public Prosecutor, Dhrangadhra, the learned Public Prosecutor has not submitted the same in the court and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra by his order dtd. 1/8/2007 has rejected the application for withdrawal of the cases and therefore the respective petitioners have filed both the petitions for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) Mr.Dagali, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that it is bounden duty of the learned Public Prosecutor to produce the relevant material, which are received by him from the competent authority, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra. for withdrawal of the prosecution. However, the learned Public Prosecutor is not producing the relevant documents to the Court. It is submitted that in view of the policy decision of the State, application was submitted by the then learned Public Prosecutor in other similar case for withdrawal of the prosecution and the said cases are withdrawn by the State. Submitting accordingly, it is requested to direct the Public Prosecutor to submit the s relevant documents before the concerned court for withdrawal of the cases pending against the petitioners.