Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/2049/2007 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2049 of 2007
======================================
ANKUR
PRADIPBHAI JOSHI
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & another
======================================
Appearance :
MR
MM TIRMIZI for the petitioner
Mr.
R.C. Kodekar, APP, for respondent-State
MR YN RAVANI for
Respondent No.2
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 29/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1 Rule.
Service of Rule is waived by the learned counsel appearing for the
respective respondents. At the request of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing.
2 This
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is
filed for the following relief:
?SYour
Lordships be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ,
order or direction and be pleased to transfer the investigation of
the offence registered as C.R. No.I-255 of 2007 with Radhanpur Police
Station, Patan, to respondent No.2, i.e. the CBI, or transfer the
same to another district of the State of Gujarat and be investigated
by the D.S.P. of the concerned district in the interest of justice.??
3 On
2nd November 2007, when the matter came up for admission
hearing, the Court [Coram; Akil Kureshi, J.] passed the following
order:
?SHeard
the learned advocate Shri M.M. Tirmizi for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. Shri M.R. Mengdey for the State.
Since
the investigation is in progress, it would not be appropriate on my
part to make any observation at this stage. However, by way of
interim arrangement, it is provided that the investigating agency
shall bring to the notice of the Court, the progress made in the
investigation by next date of hearing and until such time, without
permission of the Court, no chargesheet be filed. Considering that
earlier investigation was being conducted by Dy. S.P., but now is
entrusted to C.P.I. on of account of objection raised by the
petitioner, it is further directed that the investigation shall be
supervised by D.S.P. of the district. S.O. to 28.11.2007. Direct
service is permitted.??
4 Thus,
this Court directed that the investigation shall be supervised by the
D.S.P. of the District and, in pursuance thereof, a detailed report
is filed on 15th December 2007 through the learned Public
Prosecutor. In the report, it is stated that, in the back-drop of
allegations levelled against the accused, offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 324, 323, 504, 506(2) and 120B of
the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act have
already been registered. That, panchanama of scene of offence was
drawn. That, the Officers of the FSL were called at the scene of
offence and, upon inspection, it was found that there was no local
firing. That, statement of injured witness M.K. Saiyed, whose
statement was recorded at the relevant point of time as a dying
declaration, clearly indicated no firing from the revolver. That
injured witnesses Mohmad Yusuf Khubmiya Saiyed, Usmanbhai Abdul
Rehman Vora stated in support of the complainant and necessary
certificates with injuries are obtained. That, the Investigating
Authority arrested one Chowdhary Virjibhai Gangaram and the air-gun
was seized and remand was obtained, but no other weapon was found. So
far as the revolver pertaining to Shankerbhai Lagdhirbhai Chowdhary
is concerned, he was possessing a revolver under licence No.13 of
2002, which was subsequently renewed but came to be cancelled on
10.10.2007 by the District Collector, Patan and, therefore, Sections
25(1A) and 25(1BH) were added. That, the Investigating Authority
obtained mobile-phone print of out-going and in-coming calls. So far
as other accused are concerned, the court concerned granted bail to
them and they could not be arrested. Even at the relevant point of
time, non-cooperation of accused Shankerbhai Lagdhirbhai Chowdhary
was reported to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Radhanpur. The accused, who are already arrested, namely, Somabhai
Chelabhai Joshi and Chowdhary Virjibhai Gangaram were subsequently
released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order
dated 25.10.2007. At the relevant point of time, some other
applications for anticipatory bail were pending before the concerned
Court. In addition to the above, the Investigating Authority has
clearly stated as to where the conspiracy was hatched and under whose
guidance. It is submitted by the Circle Police Inspector
[Investigating Officer] that further investigation continues and, as
directed by the Court, the whole investigation is monitored by the
District Superintendent of Police.
5 In
view of the above report, none of the grievances of the complainant
can be considered at this stage. This Court is, prima-facie,
satisfied about the manner and method in which the investigation is
carried out. Therefore, the prayer of transfer of investigation
cannot be granted.
6 However,
it will be open for the petitioner to raise grievances, if any,
before the appropriate Forum.
7 In
the result, this petition fails and is rejected. Rule is discharged.
(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)
(swamy)
Top