Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/481/2004 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 481 of 2004
To
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 486 of 2004
=========================================================
CHIMANLAL
SHANTILAL RANA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BS PATEL for
Applicant(s) : 1,MRS RANJAN B PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR JK
SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 22/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner is common in all these petitions. In separate petitions
he has challenged similar order passed by the trial Court refusing
to discharge for offences punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468,
471, 201 read with Section 114 of the IPC.
Facts
emerging from Special Criminal Application No. 481/2004 may be
noticed. Petitioner was at the relevant time working as Office
Superintendent in NL General Hospital, Patan. In the said
organisation, it was noticed that with respect to some six staff
members, some of the co-employees had played mischief and six
different bills were prepared withdrawing amounts from the Provident
Fund accounts of such employees. Such amounts were misappropriated
for which the petitioner and other co-employees were charge-sheeted.
It is the case of the petitioner that he had no direct role to play
in the entire scandal. The notes and office submissions were
prepared by lower staff, verified by account staff and only finally
after due verification at several levels, it was approved by his
superior officer i.e. Civil Surgeon of the Hospital. He had no
direct role to play. He has not committed any offence. There is no
evidence to link him with the said offence.
Before
the trial Court, when he filed discharge application, same came to
be dismissed by impugned order dated 6.10.1997 observing inter-alia
that whenever such allegations are made, ordinarily head of the
office has to bear full responsibility. The petitioner has
indirectly helped in destroying or concealing the record. Learned
Judge therefore, found that no case for discharge is made out.
Consequently, he proceeded to frame the charges on 10.10.2003 in
which it is alleged that all the accused while discharging duties
at the Government hospital, Patan had by creating false signatures
of other employees and withdrawing Rs. 5400/- from the account, had
misappropriated said sum, thereby committed offences punishable
under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 114 of the
IPC.
Upon
hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for
the State and having perused the documents on record, I find that
none of the witnesses have made any direct reference to the role of
the petitioner. In such cases, eyewitness accounts are unlikely to
be available. Nevertheless, there has to be some evidence to proceed
further against the petitioner. Petitioner was only office
superintendent. He was neither in accounts section nor was
sanctioning authority. Additionally, learned APP has taken me
through the report of the FSL in which also involvement of the
petitioner in fabricating the signatures is not forthcoming. I am
therefore, of the opinion that even if the trial is permitted
against the petitioner, there is no possibility of conviction in
absence of sufficient evidence. He is required to be and is hereby
discharged. All orders are quashed.
Revision
applications are disposed of accordingly. Interim relief stands
vacated.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top