KIRIT KUMAR K. JANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. P.G. Desai, learned Public Prosecutor waives the service of Rule. As both have submitted, the application is heard today and is being disposed of.

(2.) This Revision Application is directed against the order dated 11.11.97, passed by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad below the application (Ex.5) preferred by the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 207 of 1997, refusing to discharge him of the charge u/Sections 193, 195, 204, 380 and 454 r/w 114, Indan Penal Code levelled against him. In order to appreciate rival contentions relevant facts may in brief be stated.

(3.) The petitioner is the Advocate and also the agriculturist. Against him for committing the offences of cheating, forgery and using forged documents, a complaint being Criminal Case No.882 of 1996 came to be filed in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 11 Ahmedabad. In that case he prayed for being discharged without framing the charge alleging that no prima facie case to proceed against him was made out. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged him of the offence of using forged document, but ordered to proceed with the case qua rest of the offences. The petitioner then preferred Cri. Revi. Application No. 20 of 1997, while the State preferred Cri. Revi. Application No. 35 of 1997 in the Court of Addl. City Sessions Judge at Ahmedabad. Both the Revisions were pending before Mr. Antani, the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge. Record and proceeding of the lower Court called for were also kept with R and P of both the Revision Applications, fixed for hearing on 17th March, 1997. On that day Kanjibhai Mankanbhai Rabari was the Peon on duty in that Court. After cleaning and sweeping the chamber and Court room on the upstairs of the Court building, the peon had to go down so as to receive the learned Judge who was about to come and usher him into his Chamber. When the peon came out of the Court room around 10.15 a.m. he saw the petitioner and a person not known to him together in the lobby. He then went down-stairs but came up within few minutes though the learned Judge had not arrived. In the lobby at that time the petitioner alone was found standing, the stranger who was with the petitioner was not found there. The peon went into the Court room. He did not see the R and P of both the Revision Applications and of the case before lower Court kept on the cupboard. The peon smelt a rat. Going into the lobby he questioned the petitioner. The reply given by the petitioner was that he saw someone coming out of the Court room with some papers and files and went down. The peon then informed Shri J.S. Jadav serving as Assistant in the Court who at that time had reached there. Thinking that the records were stolen Mr. Jadav informed Shri J.N. Parmar serving as Superintendent, and learned Judge Shri Antani. Necessary report was then made to the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. Shri N.H. Patel, the Registrar of the Court was then directed to lodge the complaint who in turn lodged the complaint with Karanj Police Station, Ahmedabad. It was registered as Crime Register No. 61/97. At the conclusion of the inquiry the police filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner, in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Initially in the FIR sent to the Court the offences under Section 380 and 454 r.w. 114 were alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and unknown person. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court Ahmedabad added the charges of the offences u/Sections 193,195 &204, IP Code. He then heard the parties and committed the case to the Court of City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. The case then came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 207 of 1997. It was then assigned to Mr. R.H. Shukla, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner against whom alone the case was committed as the unknown is still not traced out and apprehended, filed the application (Ex. 5) to discharge him without framing the charge as according to him no prima facie case was made out to proceed against him. Disagreeing with the petitioner, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the application on 11.11.97 and determined to frame the charge. I t is against that order this Revision Application is filed.