LAWS(GJH)-2017-1-16

NATVARLAL AMARSHIBHAI DEVANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On January 18, 2017
Natvarlal Amarshibhai Devani Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant original accused has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) In the case in hand, the writ applicant is charged with the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegations are that while serving as a Superintendent of the Prohibition and Excise Directorate, the writ applicant demanded an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards illegal gratification for the purpose of renewing the permit issued in favour of the original complainant. It appears that there was a telephonic talk between the two which was recorded. The Investigating Agency prepared a transcript of the tape-recorded conversation between the accused and the complainant, in which, according to the case of the prosecution, there is an illegal demand at the end of the writ applicant. The Investigating Agency thought fit to subject the writ applicant to a Voice Spectrography Test, which was opposed by the writ applicant.

(3.) At the outset, I may state that Mr. Mangukiya, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant submitted that he has instructions from his client not to press this writ application and withdraw the same unconditionally. He submitted that although this writ application raises an important question relating to the right of the Investigating Agency to conduct the Voice Spectrography Test of an accused and also the right of the accused to deny lending his voice sample for the purpose of identification of his voice so as to compare the same with the tape recorded telephonic conversation, yet as his client does not want to press this application, the Court may permit the writ applicant to withdraw and leave the question to be decided in any other appropriate matter. Mr. Mangukiya submitted that the petitioner is a dominus litus and if he files the petition, he has a right to withdraw the same. According to him, he could not have made such a request if the mater is argued and the judgment is reserved. However, since without any effective hearing, his client wants to withdraw the writ application, he may be permitted to do so.