BHADRESH RAMANLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -original accused No. 1, by way of present Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2008 passed by the Learned Special Judge, C.B.I. No. 3, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2007 and also seeks to challenge the Order dated 27.09.2007 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special C.B.I. Court No. 1, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2004.

(2.) SHORT facts leading to the filing of the present Revision Application are that case being RC 97 of 1997 came to be registered with Kalol Police Station, District : Mehsana on 17.06.1997 against two accused viz., Kamlesh Shah and Bhadresh Shah, on the basis of complaint filed by Shri K.M. Pandit, Chief Inspector of Stamps, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, pursuant to the consent of the Government of Gujarat and Government of India, it was transferred to CBI, SIU(XVII), SPE, New Delhi, where it was registered as RC 9/97 -SIU(XVII) on 30.12.1997. After registration of the offence, investigation was entrusted to Shri V.K. Shukla, Inspector, C.B.I. by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., New Delhi.

(3.) AFTER completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer, having found sufficient evidence against the petitioner -accused and one Rajeshwariben, sister -in -law (bhabhi), submitted chargesheet on 31.01.2000 in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalol, where it was numbered as Criminal Case No. 619/2002. However, pursuant to the order of the Learned District Judge, Mehsana, the said case was transferred to the Court of Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and Special Judge, C.B.I. Court No. 1, Mehsana, wherein it was numbered as Special Case No. 40 of 2004. Thereafter, the Court below framed charge against the accused at Exh.16. The accused, however, pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried. During course of trial, after examination of some of the witnesses, the original accused No. 2 was proclaimed absconder and her case was separated by the Trial Court.