Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/110/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 110 of 2011
=========================================================
SURJITSINGH
AMARSINGH LONGIA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MA KHARADI for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR MAHMOOD A MADNI for Applicant(s) : 1,
MS CM
SHAH, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 29/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner – original accused has filed this petition with a
prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 1.2.2011
passed by the learned JMFC, Vadodara below Exh.10 in Criminal Case
No.654 of 2010.
2. Heard
learned advocate Mr.M.A.Kharadi for the petitioner. It is submitted
by learned advocate Mr.Kharadi that the trial court has not given any
cogent reasons for not discharging the accused. It is also submitted
that, from the papers of chargesheet, nothing is come out to show
prima-facie that the accused is connected with the crime. It is also
submitted that, when the incident took place, the petitioner is not
partner of M/s.Jay Ambe Chemicals Trading and necessary documents
were also produced to this effect before the police. It is
submitted that the trial court has not considered the same and the
trial court has committed an error in rejecting the application
Exh.10 submitted under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Heard
learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the respondent-State. It is submitted by
learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah that, as far as resolution of the deed of
partnership is concerned, there is no signature of the present
petitioner was found, and only with a view to escape his liability,
the same was created an after-thought. It is also submitted that
initially the accused was absconding and therefore he was not
arrested and chargesheet could not be filed against the present
petitioner. It is also submitted that the chargesheet was filed
against other co-accused persons and the trial has already been
commenced and the matter is pending before the trial court for
delivering the judgment. Subsequently the present petitioner was
arrested and the supplementary chargesheet was filed before the trial
court. It is further submitted that the statement of co-accused has
been recorded and there is ample evidence against the present
petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order
passed by the trial court is legal and proper and the same is not
required to be interfered with by this Court.
4. This
Court has gone through the impugned order passed by the trial court.
It is observed by the trial court that, after perusing the police
papers, there is evidence which connect the present petitioner –
accused with the crime and sufficient evidence is there to initiate
trial against the present petitioner. This Court has also gone
through certain papers of chargesheet. As far as resolution of deed
of partnership is concerned, the signature of the present
petitioner is not found in the said partnership deed. Moreover there
is charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code,
and to prove this charge, statement of co-accused is also relevant
under Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act. As per the statement of the
co-accused, the present petitioner is involved with the crime.
Hence there is no substance in the petition, the petition is devoid
of any merits and the same is summarily dismissed.
[M.D.Shah,
J.]
syed/
Top