Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1217/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1217 of 2009
=========================================================
HARSHVARDHAN
JAYANTILAL VYAS - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PARESH UPADHYAY with MR VAIBHAV A VYAS
for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MS CM SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 25/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned APP Ms. Shah waives service of Rule for respondent No.1,
State of Gujarat.
Petitioner
is original accused. Pending the trial, he has filed an application
Exh.29 seeking certain documents from the Government. The documents
were demanded on premise that against the very same subject matter
transaction, sanction by the competent authority was not granted.
However, in the present case, sanction for prosecution has been
granted which according to the accused was illegal. The accused,
therefore, prayed for production of those documents to enable him to
defend himself in the present trial.
Learned
trial Judge rejected the application by impugned order dated
06.04.2009 observing inter-alia that two cases are entirely different
and non-granting sanction for prosecution in one, would have no
effect on present proceedings.
Petitioner
is, therefore, before this Court in the present petition.
Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that the documents are vital
for the defence of the petitioner since according to him in identical
background the competent authority had refused to grant sanction for
prosecution.
Learned
APP Ms. Shah, however, vehemently submitted that two incidents are
entirely different. Reason for non-granting sanction for prosecution
in one, in no way would be prejudicial to the present prosecution.
She, thus, supported the order under challenge.
At
this stage only question before me is for production of certain
documents as prayed for in application Exh.29 before the trial Court.
It is not necessary for me to go into details of two cases, one in
which, against the petitioner, Government withheld the sanction and
in other, sanction for prosecution was granted. In larger interest
of justice, if the petitioner require those documents in his defence,
I see no reason why such documents should be withheld. If the Court
upon perusal of the documents comes to the conclusion that both cases
do not overlap, surely the decision of the Government in the earlier
case would not in any manner prejudice the prosecution, however, I
see no reason why such documents should be withheld from the
petitioner in defence of his own case.
In
the result impugned order dated 06.04.2009 is set aside. Application
Exh.29 to the limited extent of prayer for the production of
documents pertaining to the Government’s reply, the report filed by
the prosecution before the Court and the prayer for the summary filed
before the Court, is granted at this stage. If the petitioner makes
it a further case that two cases are overlapping, it will be open for
him to file further application, if so advised. Rest of the
documents are not granted at this stage. Respondents and in
particular respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall carry out these directions.
Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
menon
Top