Decided on September 12,1983

R M Agravat R R Shah Asst Commissioner Ahmd Appellant
District Judge Jamnagar Sukar Narayan Bakhia Respondents


A.P.RAVANI, J. - (1.) It is seriously asserted in the academic world that Modern India seems to have at least two parallel legal systems : One for the rich and resourceful and those who wield political power and influence and the other for the small men without resources and capabilities to obtain justice or fight injustice [See Origin of Indian Legal System at page 4 by Prof. Upedra Baxi.] One may or may not agree with this observation he but if any one is in search of evidenc to support the aforesaid proposition the proceedings of this case in general and the impugned order passed by the learned City Session Judge (Court No. 4 Ahmedabad granting baH to the opponent-accsued in particular should serve as a sufficient proof for the coorrectness of the statement. It is bit surprising (and shocking too) that the learned City Sessions Judge (Court No. 4) Ahmedabad did not even refer to the provisions of Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code although the Supreme Court had clearly pointed out the same and had directed to keep the said provision in mind while deciding an application for bail. The provisions of Section 436(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code empower a court to refuse bail in certain situations even in cases where accused is charged with bailable offences.
(2.) The courts dealing with the cases of economic offenders must show their utmost serious concern. Blackmoney not only eats into the vitals of the nations economy but with the widening spread and deepening influence of the blackmoney the very moral fabric of the society gets shattered. If this be the consequences on account of generation of blackmoney should the lower court have not seen that the trial of the case instituted in the year 1974 at least commences before the end of year 1983. To ensure the speedy and unhampered trial of the case was it not imperative for the learned City Sessions Judge to refuse bail in this case ? Was it not necessary for him to take into consideration the larger public interest ? Let us examine the details of the case and make an attempt to answer the aforesaid questions.
(3.) Applicant-Assistant Commissioner (Acq. Range) Income Tax Department Ahmedabad has preferred this revision application against an order (Annx. B) passed by the City Sessions Court Court No. 4 Ahmedabad dated August 12 1983 granting bail to the opponent-accused and it is further inter alia prayed that the bail granted to the opponent-accused be ordered to be cancelled.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.