{"id":235293,"date":"2010-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-06-15T06:05:29","modified_gmt":"2015-06-15T00:35:29","slug":"balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Balvantbhai vs State on 19 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Balvantbhai vs State on 19 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/13370\/2010\t 25\/ 25\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 13370 of 2010\n \n\n \n=====================================\n \n\nBALVANTBHAI\nVADAJI CHAUHAN - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n===================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR KG PANDIT for Petitioner(s)\n: 1, \nGOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone for\nRespondent(s) : 2 - 4. \n=====================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 19\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.0\tPetitioner
\nis before this Court praying that:\n<\/p>\n
“9(A)\t\tThat
\nYour Lordships be pleased to admit this petition by passing suitable
\ndirections in form of mandamus and\/or certiorari and\/or in the nature
\nof any order upon respondents more particularly respondent no. 2 (The
\nDeputy Secretary, Panchayat Gram Gruh Nirman & Gram Vikas Vibhag)
\nand no. 4 (The Deputy Secretary, Gujarat Gram Seva Satta Pasandgi
\nMandal – GPSC)  herein above to permit the petitioner to resume
\nduties, pursuant to the orders at Annexure ‘C’ issued by respondent
\nno. 2 dated 6.10.2009 for the post of Junior Clerk Grade-III, on any
\nsuitable terms and conditions, which may be deemed fit, just and
\nproper to this Hon’ble Court and in the interest of justice, equity
\nand fair play and in view of the decision rendered by the Division
\nBench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and for which
\nthe daily newspaper report have been annexed to this petition at
\nAnnexure ‘H’.”\n<\/p>\n
1.1
\n\tIt will be necessary in this case to refer to the relief prayed as
\ninterim relief in this petition, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“9(B)\t\tPending
\nhearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be
\npleased to pass suitable directions upon respondent no. 2 and\/or no.
\n4 herein above by restraining them and\/or their servants, agents,
\netc., the petitioner to resume duty, pursuant to the orders at
\nAnnexure ‘C’ dated 6.10.2009 in Junior Clerk Grade – III for
\nthe post in which he has been eligible after due verification by
\nrespondents herein above, on any suitable terms and conditions which
\nmay be deemed fit, just and proper to this Hon’ble Court and in view
\nof the decision rendered by the Division Bench
\nof Hon’ble Delhi High Court and for which the daily newspaper report
\nhave been annexed to this petition at Annexure ‘H’.”\n<\/p>\n
1.2\tThe
\npetitioner has also prayed for following interim relief:\n<\/p>\n
“9(C)\t\tPending
\nhearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships further
\nbe pleased to pass suitable directions upon the respondents to permit
\nthe petitioner to resume his duties in Junior Clerk Grade – III
\npursuant to the order at Annexure ‘C’ dated 6.10.2009 on condition of
\nfinal outcome and\/or judgment which may be delivered by this Hon’ble
\nCourt in Criminal Appeal No. 442\/2009 (sic. 442\/2003) subjudice
\nbefore this Hon’ble Court, on any suitable terms and conditions which
\nmay be deemed fit, just and proper to this Hon’ble Court and in view
\nof the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High
\nCourt annexed to this petition at Annexure ‘I’.”\n<\/p>\n
2.0\tThe
\nlearned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to
\nthe following facts:\n<\/p>\n
2.1\tThat
\nthe petitioner had approached this Court by filing Special Civil
\nApplication No. 701 of 2009, which came to be heard and disposed of
\nby this Court (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice MR Shah) by judgment and
\norder dated 9th March 2009.  The learned advocate for the
\npetitioner invited attention of the Court to the operative part of
\nthe order, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“For
\nthe reasons stated above, petition succeeds.  The impugned order
\ndated 15.12.2008 rejecting the application for appointment on
\ncompassionate ground is quashed and set aside and
\nconcerned respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the
\npetitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and pass
\nappropriate order within 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of
\ncopy of this order.”\n<\/p>\n
3.0\tThe
\nlearned advocate for the petitioner then invited attention of the
\nCourt to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc.
\nCivil Application No. 1924 of 2003 in Special Civil Application No.
\n701 of 2009, which was filed because the authorities did not comply
\nwith the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court
\n(supra).  The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
\nthat the authorities came forward with an affidavit in reply, which
\nis referred to in the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated
\n2nd February 2010, a copy of which is produced at Annexure
\n‘D’ to this petition, relevant part of which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Respondent
\nNo. 2 and 3 have filed affidavit in reply along with a
\ncommunication dated 7.10.2009 whereunder the petitioner is ordered to
\nbe given an appointment on ad-hoc basis on the fixed pay of
\nRs.2,500\/-, subject to certain conditions enumerated in the order.”\n<\/p>\n
3.1\tThe
\nCourt was pleased to discharge the Notice with no costs.\n<\/p>\n
4.0\tThe
\nlearned advocate for the petitioner then invited attention of the
\nCourt to Annexure ‘C’, order dated 6th October 2009,
\nAnnexure ‘C-1’ – communication dated 8th October
\n2009 and then submitted that there is conviction recorded against the
\npetitioner in a Sessions Case No.  97 of 2002 by
\njudgment and order dated 7th April 2003 by the learned
\nFast Track Court Judge, Modasa.  So far as the petitioner is
\nconcerned, he is accused no. 4 in the said Sessions Case and for an
\noffence punishable under Sec. 186 of the Indian Penal Code, the
\npetitioner is awarded ‘ 03 months’ Rigorous Imprisonment’ and
\n‘Rs.500\/- Fine’  and in default ‘ 01
\nmonth’s Rigorous Imprisonment’  and under Sec.
\n135(3) of the Bombay Police Act, Fine of Rs.100\/- and in default, 10
\nday’s Simple Imprisonment.  (emphasis
\nsupplied) <\/p>\n
4.1\tThe
\nlearned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has
\npaid the fine.  This fact is set out on the last page of the judgment
\nand order of the learned Fast Track Court Judge.\n<\/p>\n
4.2\tThe
\nlearned advocate for the petitioner submitted that against that
\nconviction, a Criminal Appeal is preferred before this Court being
\nCriminal Appeal No. 442 of 2003 and this Court (Coram: Honourable Mr.
\nJustice Sharad D. Dave, as he then was) admitted the same.  The
\nlearned advocate for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order
\npassed by this Court (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Sharad D. Dave,
\nas he then was) in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2734 of 2003 in
\nCriminal Appeal No. 442 of 2003.  the order passed on 25th
\nApril 2003 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“1.\tRule.  Mr. A.J. Desai, learned APP  waives  service of rule for the respondent – State.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe  petitioners  have  already  been released on bail by the trial Court.  The petitioners have (sic. are) convicted for offences punishable under Sections 186 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police  Act  and are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three months (sic. order imposes ‘Rigorous Imprisonment’)  and to pay a fine of Rs.500\/- and  in  default  of fine  to undergo further simple imprisonment (sic. Rigorous Imprisonment) of one month by the learned Additional Sessions &  Fast  Track  Judge, Modasa, by his judgment and order dated 07.04.2003 passed in Sessions Case No.97 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIn  view  of the above, same bail and fresh bonds for the petitioners.    Rule  is  made  absolute.    D.S. permitted.”\n<\/p>\n
4.3\tThe
\nlearned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, ‘the actual
\neffect of the admission of appeal and granting same bail and fresh
\nbonds is that the conviction and sentence stands suspended and
\ntherefore, the case of the petitioner should be considered for giving
\nappointment to the post of Junior Clerk Grade III’.\n<\/p>\n
4.4\tOn
\nthis submission being made, the learned advocate for the petitioner
\nwas requested to show the law that in absence of a specific order of
\nsuspending the conviction, how it can be construed that the
\nconviction is suspended, the learned advocate for the petitioner
\ndeemed it proper to leave this argument at that stage and did not
\npursue it further.\n<\/p>\n
5.0\tThe
\nlearned advocate for the petitioner then invited attention of the
\nCourt to the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Delhi in
\nthe matter of Writ Petition (C) No. 2068 of 2010 dated 25th
\nAugust 2010 and practically read the whole of the judgment with a
\nview to see that the Court is convinced to follow a same course of
\naction.  The learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the
\nfollowing Paras of the judgment, which are reproduced for ready
\nperusal:\n<\/p>\n
“20.\n<\/p>\n
It is unfortunate that in India we are not marching ahead in the
\ncomity of nations and prefer to be governed by the recruitment
\nprocesses which are a legacy of the British era; ignoring that the
\npurpose of governance then was to rule and the purpose of governance
\nnow is to serve.\n<\/p>\n
21.
\nWe have prefaced our decision with the statement whether pendency of
\na criminal proceeding or for that matter a conviction by a competent
\ncourt of law may justify eyebrows to be raised, but would it justify
\nthe shutting of one\u201fs eye?\n<\/p>\n
22.
\nNow, a man can be booked for the offence of over-speeding and perhaps
\nmay be convicted for parking his motor vehicle in a non-parking area.
\nWould this man be of a character, compelling in public interest and
\nfor public good, not to induct him in public service? The answer
\nwould be in the negative. As against that, a man has committed murder
\nor has broken into a departmental store and stolen cash. Would this
\nman be of a character, compelling in public interest and for public
\ngood, not to induct him in public service. The answer would be in the
\naffirmative.\n<\/p>\n
23.
\nNot to induct persons with a criminal background in public service,
\nis based on the premise that considerations of public policy, concern
\nfor public interest, regard for public good would justify a
\nprohibition. Thus, the primary consideration is, whether public
\ninterest and public good would be jeopardized if a person with a
\ncriminal background is inducted in public service. And this takes us
\nstraight to the core of the issue, whether brush with penal law would
\njustify the eyes to be closed against the offender or only such brush
\nwith penal law which is of a higher degree of criminality. If the
\nanswer is in the negative, the further question: what should be the
\nhigher degree of criminality which would justify the eyes being shut
\nto such person needs to be addressed.\n<\/p>\n
24.
\nWith respect to the first two examples given by us in para 22 above,
\nnone would argue that for such trivial offences the eyes must be shut
\nagainst the offender, and with regard to the next two, everybody
\nwould agree that the eyes should be shut to such a person who has to
\nbe ignored. We concede that the examples are in the extreme, but they
\ncertainly help us in understanding as to the process of reasoning
\nrequired to be adopted to decide as to on which side of the
\nborder-line a case would fall.\n<\/p>\n
25.
\n& 26…\n<\/p>\n
27.
\nWe do not intend to make a catalog of reported decisions as to what
\nmisdemeanours should normally attract the penalty of removal or
\ndismissal from service. We may simply state that with respect to
\nconviction for grave and serious offences alone, on the anvil of
\npublic interest and for public good, Courts have held that the
\noffender has rendered himself unfit to continue in office and in
\nextreme cases summary dismissal or removal from service by invoking
\nArticle 311 of the Constitution is also held justified.\n<\/p>\n
28…\n<\/p>\n
29.
\nLooking through the prism of case law pertaining to when can the door
\nbe shown to a government servant and by doing reverse engineering we
\ncan safely say that what is good for the door to be shown, is good
\nfor prohibiting entry through the door, and thus while denying public
\nemployment with respect to the offence committed by a person, it can
\nbe said, and we say so, that it may be a serious violation of the
\nconstitutional right of a citizen to be fairly treated in the matter
\nof public employment if trivial offences committed by the citizen
\nwould justify the State shutting its eyes and denying employment.\n<\/p>\n
30.
\n& 31…\n<\/p>\n
32.
\nIt is unfortunate that in India, the Government does not come out
\nwith white papers of the deliberations at various seminars, but we
\nfind a reference made to the \u201eAll India Seminar on Correctional
\nService\u201f held at New Delhi in March 1969, to consider and lay
\nguidelines pertaining to the problem of rehabilitation of
\nex-convicts, with emphasis on the need for their employment under the
\ngovernment. Vide OM dated 2.2.1973, No.6857-GSI-72-2755, the State of
\nHaryana has listed the penal offences which have been treated as
\ngrave, serious and involving moral turpitude. The said OM lists the
\nunder-noted penal offences as grave, serious and involving moral
\nturpitude, disentitling the convict to public employment; the
\noffences are:- Sections 120-A, 121-A, 122 to 124, 161, 161-1A, 165,
\n167, 181, 182, 193 to 201, 205, 209, 293, 302, 304, 307, 354, 359,
\n362, 363 to 366, 366-A, 366-B, 367 to 373, 376, 377, 379, 380, 391,
\n392, 398 to 400, 403, 404, 406 to 409, 417 to 421, 449, 450, 453 to
\n458, 465 to 468, 471 to 476, 477-A, 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D,
\n489-E, 493 to 498 of the Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
33.
\nWe are a little surprised at the list as it excludes offences such as
\npromoting enmity or doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony
\ni.e. offences punishable under Section 153-A IPC. It excludes
\noffences pertaining to mutiny and its abetment i.e. offences under
\nSections 131 to 136 IPC. But we do not comment. However, what we find
\nis, the common thread of including all offences against women and
\nsuch offences which are punishable with imprisonment for life as also
\nimprisonment for a term exceeding three years and above. We get a
\nclue. Offences which do not carry a mandatory sentence of
\nimprisonment and it to be imprisoned the term is less than 3 years
\nand the offender can be let off with payment of fine, are not
\nincluded in the said list. It is an undisputed fact that there are no
\nrules to guide the authorities in Delhi Police as to in what cases
\ndespite acquittal, the person can be kept out of service or can be
\ndeprived of employment.\n<\/p>\n
34.
\nThat apart, as generically understood, offences involving moral
\nturpitude can be classified with reference to the act being one which
\nshocks the moral conscience of the society in general and this can be
\ndetermined with reference to the motive of the offender i.e. whether
\nthe motive which led to the act was a base one or alternatively
\nwhether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrator
\ncould be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was
\nto be looked down upon by the society.\n<\/p>\n
35…\n<\/p>\n
36.
\nLife is too precious to be staked over petty incidents and the cruel
\nresult of conviction for petty offences being the end of the career,
\nthe future and the present, of young and inexperienced persons cannot
\nblast their life and their dreams.\n<\/p>\n
37.
\nIn a growing democracy, where the systems are failing and the weak
\nand the downtrodden are hardly given the opportunity to sharpen their
\nintellect thereby diminishing the ability of their consciousness to
\nact as a mirror to their acts and actions, it is high time that the
\nexecutive brings into place a policy where summary\/ordinary
\nconviction should not be treated as a conviction for entry or
\nretention in government service.\n<\/p>\n
38.
\nTill then, it would be the duty of the Court to interpret the law by
\nharmonizing human sufferings and human wants, delinquencies and
\ncriminal tendencies; conscious of the fact that passengers on
\nSpaceship Earth are the rich and the poor, the needy and the
\nwell-off, the hungry and the well-fed, the educated and the
\nuneducated. The need of the hour is to understand that criminals are
\nnot born and are not irredeemable brutes. Crime may be a disease but
\nnot the criminal, who are a kind of psychic patients and to
\nunderstand, that anti-social maladies are mostly the result of social
\nimbalances. It must be remembered that on the one hand, social
\nstresses, for various reasons, explosively mount in the real world\u201fs
\nhard environs and the harsh remedy of heartless incarceration and
\nouster from society deepens the criminality. The swing of the
\npendulum to the humanist side requires respect for the worth of
\npersonhood and the right of every man and woman in its residual human
\nessence.\n<\/p>\n
39.
\nWhat is the gravamen of the allegation constituting the act committed
\nby the respondent which was treated as voluntarily causing hurt is
\nnot known to us. What was the nature of insult heaped upon the
\ncomplainant which attracted the offence punishable under Section 504
\nIPC and what was the act which attracted the crime of criminal
\nintimidation is also not known. But from a trinity of the three i.e.
\nthe alleged offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, Section 504 IPC
\nand Section 506 IPC we can safely presume that the allegation against
\nthe respondent was of abusing the complainant and threatening to beat
\nhim followed by simple beating.\n<\/p>\n
40.
\nAll these offences are non-cognizable and needless to state are
\nbailable. No moral turpitude, as generically understood, is involved.
\nThe acts do not shock the moral conscious of the society and with
\nreference to the motive do not evidence a person with depraved
\ncharacter. The offences are not of the kind which would justify
\ndismissal or removal from service, if the respondent had committed
\nthe same if in service.\n<\/p>\n
41.
\nThus, being charged with the said offences, of which the respondent
\nhas ultimately been acquitted, would not be a bar and cannot be
\ntreated as a bar to seek public employment and on being successful at
\nthe entrance exam, to be denied the same.\n<\/p>\n
42.
\nto 52…\n<\/p>\n
53.
\nThe respondent was born on 21.05.1987. The age of the respondent when
\nhe was made an accused in the Non-Cognizable Report would be 19
\nyears. The trivial offence of what he was charged of, in which he has
\nbeen acquitted, cannot make him a criminal of a kind where public
\ninterest requires his non-induction in the Police force and that too
\nas a Sub-Inspector (Executive) and that means his duties would be
\nclerical and not with arms and surely not on the streets requiring
\nhim to deal with public. Assuming that the petitioner did the acts of
\nwhich he was accused of, the same is a trivial brawl which he had in
\nthe village. Some fist blows with choicest abuses in tandem were
\nhurled at the victim.”\n<\/p>\n
5.1\tWhile
\nreading Para 33, the attention of the learned advocate was drawn to
\nthe following part of that Para:\n<\/p>\n
“We
\nare a little surprised at the list as it excludes offences such as
\n promoting enmity or doing act prejudicial
\nto maintenance of harmony i.e. offences punishable under Section
\n153-A IPC.  It excludes offences pertaining to  mutiny
\nand its abetment i.e. offences under Sections 131 to 136 IPC.  But we
\ndo not comment…” (emphasis
\nsupplied) \t<\/p>\n
5.2\tIt
\nwas inquired from the learned advocate for the petitioner as to which
\nlist is referred to in this Para 33, the learned advocate at the
\nfirst brush replied that the list given by the Division Bench in its
\njudgment but later on corrected himself by reading Para 32.  While
\nreading Para 32, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
\nthat this is the opinion of a Division Bench of a High Court but
\nlater on he corrected himself by saying that this is in the nature of
\nrecommendations made at the end of a Seminar which was ‘All India
\nSeminar on Correctional Service’. Relevant part of Para 32 reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“It
\nis unfortunate that in India the Government does not come out with
\nwhile papers of the deliberations at various seminars but we
\nfind a reference made to the All India Seminar on Correctional
\nService held at New Delhi in March 1969 to consider and lay
\nguidelines pertaining to … rehabilitation of ex-convicts  with
\nemphasis on the need for their employment under the Government.”
\n(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
5.3\tIt
\nwas inquired as to whether is it the suggestion of the learned
\nadvocate that conviction in petty offences should be made additional
\nqualification for getting Government job, the learned advocate for
\nthe petitioner submitted that he is only bringing to the notice of
\nthis Court the observations made by the Division Bench of a High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
5.4\tThe
\nfurther part of Para 32 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Vide
\nOM dated 2.2.1973, No.6857-GSI-72-2755,  the State of
\nHaryana has listed the penal offences which have been treated as
\ngrave, serious and involving moral turpitude. The said
\nOM lists the under-noted penal offences as grave, serious and
\ninvolving moral turpitude, disentitling the convict to public
\nemployment; the offences are:- Sections…” (emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
5.5\tIt
\nis with regard to this list, issued by the State of Haryana that the
\nDivision Bench expressed surprise.\n<\/p>\n
6.0\tThe
\nlearned advocate placed emphasis on Para 53, wherein, it is stated
\nthat, ‘the respondent was born on 21.05.1987. The age of
\nthe respondent when he was made an accused in the Non-Cognizable
\nReport would be 19 years…”\n<\/p>\n
6.1\tThe
\nlearned advocate without giving the actual date of birth of the
\npetitioner, without setting out the actual age of the petitioner
\nsubmitted that that the petitioner is also of a ‘tender age’.  The
\nCourt is not able to understand as to what meaning should be assigned
\nto this word ‘tender age’.\n<\/p>\n
6.2\tThe
\nfurther part of Para 53 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
” The
\ntrivial offence of what he was charged  of, in which
\nhe has been acquitted, cannot make him a criminal of a kind where
\npublic interest requires his non-induction in the  Police
\n force and that too as a Sub-Inspector
\n(Executive)…” (emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
6.3\tThe
\nlearned advocate submitted that in case on hand the offence involved
\nis trivial.  This submission is made by the learned advocate without
\nreferring to the nature of the offence and without referring to the
\nrole played by the petitioner along with other co-accused, who  were
\n10 in number, including petitioner, they were 11 in all.\n<\/p>\n
6.4\tThe
\nother part of Para 53 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“and
\nthat means his duties would be clerical and not with arms and surely
\nnot on the streets requiring him to deal with public…”\n<\/p>\n
6.5\tOn
\nperusal of the judgment of Sessions Case No. 97 of 2002, Para 1 of
\nwhich reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“(1)\tA
\ncomplaint was lodged on dt. 06\/05\/2002 before P.S.I. Shri L.N. Dixit
\nin Modasa Rural Police Station by Shri Natvarbhai Jodhabhai, a Head
\nConstable of the same Police Station that, iterruption in the duty
\nas a Government servant was made by Lalaji Amaraji & Other 15
\npersons of village Kabola and that, an intimidation for killing was
\ngiven by abusing him and that, the loot of the papers of
\ninvestigation and logbook which were with him was committed, and that
\ndamage was caused to his motorcycle.  The said complaint was received
\nby P.S.O. Shankarbhai Lakhabhai for registration of crime, he
\nregistered the crime vide 1st C.R.No.\n<\/p>\n
63\/2002 in FIR register and its entry was made in the Police Station
\nDiary and it was forwarded to I\/c. P.S.I. L.N. Dixit for
\ninvestigation. Upon receiving this investigation, P.S.I. Shri Dixit
\nhad taken over its charge and the statements of the witnesses were
\nrecorded in the investigation.  The Panchnama of the place of
\noccurrence was drawn in presence of panchas and the accused persons
\nwere arrested.  As they voluntarily came forward and took out the
\nMuddamal, the same was seized.  On completion of the investigation
\nagainst the accused persons and on finding sufficient evidence for
\ncommission of offence, the charge-sheet as per Sections 186, 395,
\n336, 427 of IPC and 135 of the B.P. Act was produced before the Court
\nof Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Modasa.  The said complaint
\nwas registered as a Criminal Case No. 1171\/2002, but as the
\nSessions Court has the jurisdiction to try one charge out of the
\ncharges levelled against the accused persons, the Ld. Judicial
\nMagistrate First Class, Modasa passed an order exh. 8 (illegible) as
\nper Section 209 of Cr.P.C., the case against the accused was
\ncommitted to the Sessions Court, which was transferred to the
\nAssistant Court of Modasa for its disposal on merits.  Ld. Assistant
\nJudge of Modasa issued charge-sheet against the accused persons on
\ndt. 04\/12\/2002.  In the meantime, on establishment of a Fast Track
\nCourt at Modasa the Sessions Judge had withdrawn this case from there
\nand transferred to this Court.  Thereby, as there was violation of
\nprovision of Section 409 of Cr.P.C. & direction given in the
\njudgment at the page no. 845 of 1995(1) GLR by the Hon’ble Gujarat
\nHigh Court, this Court wrote a request letter vide outward no. 8\/2003
\nto the learned District Judge and attention was drawn for doing
\nneedful in the matter, but as no co-operation was extended from
\nthere, eventually, the proceedings against the accused persons were
\ntried further on merits.  The brief facts of the case of prosecution
\nare as below…”\n<\/p>\n
6.6\tThe
\noffence alleged against the petitioner and other co-accused is under
\nSection 186, 395, 396, 427 of IPC and Section 135-A of the Bombay
\nPolice Act.  It is mentioned that the accused abused the complainant,
\nthreatened to kill, looted investigation papers and the Logbook and
\ndamaged the motorcycle of the complainant.  It is also stated that
\nthis happened when the complainant went in investigation of another
\noffence registered at C.R. No. III – 46\/2002 at Modasa Rural
\nPolice Station.\n<\/p>\n
7.0\tFrom
\nthe aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that no
\ndirections can be issued to allow the petitioner to join the
\nGovernment service during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal, which
\nis of the year 2003.  If the petitioner is so keen, he ought to have
\nmoved this Court for early hearing of that appeal because even when
\nhe approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 701
\nof 2009, conviction dated
\n7th April 2003 was staring in
\nhis face and Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2003 was pending before this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
7.1\tThe
\nlearned advocate for the petitioner has not placed on record  any
\ndetails of efforts made by the petitioner to get that Criminal Appeal
\nheard at an early date.  This shows that the petitioner seems to be
\nunder impression that even if a Criminal Appeal is pending, he could
\npersuade the authorities and if not the authorities then this Court
\nto issue directions to give him appointment on compassionate ground.\n<\/p>\n
8.0\tThis
\nCourt is of the opinion that issuing of any such direction will be
\nmiscarriage of justice and hence this petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
[
\nRavi R. Tripathi, J. ]<\/p>\n
hiren<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Balvantbhai vs State on 19 October, 2010 Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/13370\/2010 25\/ 25 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13370 of 2010 ===================================== BALVANTBHAI VADAJI CHAUHAN – Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 3 – Respondent(s) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235293","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBalvantbhai vs State on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balvantbhai vs State on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-15T00:35:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balvantbhai vs State on 19 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-15T00:35:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4283,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Balvantbhai vs State on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-15T00:35:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balvantbhai vs State on 19 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Balvantbhai vs State on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balvantbhai vs State on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-15T00:35:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balvantbhai vs State on 19 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-15T00:35:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010"},"wordCount":4283,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010","name":"Balvantbhai vs State on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-15T00:35:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balvantbhai-vs-state-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balvantbhai vs State on 19 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235293","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235293"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235293\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235293"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235293"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235293"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}