STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL RAMESHBHAI HARAKHJIBHAI KAJIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Application is preferred by the State of Gujarat against the order dated 6-4-2004 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Dhrangadhra, in Special Case no.7/2003 whereby the discharge application filed by the present respondents-original accused came to be allowed.

(2.) It is the case of the applicant-State of Gujarat that the Taluka Development Officer lodged a complaint against the present opponents for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 471, 477, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which was registered as CR no.I 239/1993 at Halvad Police Station. According to the applicant-State in the year 1982 there was scarcity on account of droughts and the Government commenced drought relief work at different places of Halvad Taluka. It is further the case of the applicant-State that in Village Kidi, the relief work was carried out from 1-3-1982 to 12-09-1982 and during that period Magan Gora(respondent no.3) was working as muster clerk, Govind Veera(respondent no.2) was doing the work of roll call of labourers and Patel Rameshbhai Harakhjibhai Kajiya (respondent no.1) was working as a Supervisor in the office of the District Panchayat at the relevant time. According to the applicant, the present respondents nos.1, 2 and 3 in collusion with each other had made entries of false names and made wrongful payment to the labourers whose names were falsely shown, and thereby, misappropriated the Government funds as the payments were made from the public exchequer.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, upon completion of investigation chargesheet came to be filed against all the three accused persons and the case was registered as Special Case no.7/2003 in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge(Special Judge), Dhangadhra. Thereupon, the respondent no.1-Patel Rameshbhai Harjibhai Kajiya preferred application Exh.13 in Special Case no.7/2003 under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking discharge in respect of the charges levelled against him mainly on the grounds that he was not serving as a Supervisor during the period from 4th October to 12th October 1982 and as such there was no question of making false payment during that period as alleged in the complaint. According to him, even otherwise, whatever payment was made, the same was made in the presence of Sarpanch. According to the respondent no.1 no sanction was obtained for prosecuting him as required under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is mandatory, and therefore also, he should be discharged from the charges levelled against him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the respondent no.1-accused as also the learned A.P.P. allowed the application for discharge of the respondent no.1 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Criminal Revision Application.