DINESHBHAI SHIVJIBHIA PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having  considered  the  materials  on  record,  prima  facie,  I  am  of  the  view that  I  should  modify  the  interim  order  earlier  granted  and  permit  the investigation  to  proceed  further  in  accordance  with  law.  I  am  of  the  view that  the  investigation  should  be  carried  out.  I  could  have  disposed  of  this matter  relegating  the  applicant  to  avail  of  an  appropriate  legal  remedy before   the   appropriate   forum   in   accordance   with   law   to   protect themselves.  However,  as  I  have  seen  something  serious  in  the  matter,  I am  not  disposing  of  this  matter.  I  direct  the  Investigating  Officer  to  carry out  the  investigation  in  details,  but  without  taking  any  coercive  action against  the  applicants  for  the  present.  All  the  four  applicants  before  me are  directed  to  extend  full  cooperation  in  the  investigation.  However,  if they  have  any  original  documents  in  their  possession,  then  they  shall hand  over  the  same  to  the  Investigating  Officer  concerned  at  the  earliest. The   most   important   part   of   the   investigation   according   to   me,   is   the genuineness   of   the   affidavit   filed   before   this   Court   duly   affirmed   by Khimjibhai  Hiraji  Patel,  which  is  at  page:  66  of  this  paper  book.  A  lot  has been   argued   as   regards   the   genuineness   of   this   affidavit,   which   is   at page:  66.  The  case  of  the  applicants  herein  is  that  on  the  date  when  this Court   passed   the   first   order   issuing   Rule   and   granting   interim   relief, Khimjibhai  Hiraji  Patel  i.e.  the  deponent  was  personally  present  in  the Court  and  he  had  been  identified  by  one  learned  counsel  viz.  Mr.  Nisarg Shah.  Mr.  Shah  is  a  practicing  advocate  in  this  High  Court.

(2.) Mr. Lakhani, the learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. Dhaval   Vyas   and   Mr.   Apurv   Vakil,   the   learned   advocates   for   the respondent  No.2  have  vehemently  submitted  that  Khimjibhai  Patel  had not  remained  present  before  this  Court  and  the  affidavit  at  page:  66  of the  paper  book  is  false  and  the  investigation  in  this  regard  is  very  much necessary.  If  there  is  any  document  in  possession  of  Khimjibhai  or  his  son Rameshbhai,  then  the  same  shall  also  be  handed  over  to  the  Investigating Officer  so  that  the  investigation  can  be  carried  out  in  details.

(3.) For the present, I am adjourning this matter for four weeks. Further  development  in  the  matter  shall  be  reported  to  this  Court  on  the next  date  of  hearing  i.e.  1st  March  2018.