PATEL SANJAYKUMAR PRAHLADBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Application has been preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with the FIR bearing CR No. I 32 of 2015 registered with Visnagar City Police Station, Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 465, 468, 471, 114 and 120B of the IPC and under Sections 2(c), 8 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) Heard N.D.Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.Tejas P.Satta, learned counsel for the applicant. He has contended that applicant was not in the Board of the Market Committee as on 29.4.2011, when the resolution was passed. The applicant was appointed as Director on 16.1.2012. He has contended that allegation of irregularity committed in carrying out the auction proceedings of 26 plots is of general nature. The allegation is that prior permission for initiating the auction of the 26 plots was required. So far as the allegation with regard to plots allotted to relatives is concerned, the persons to whom the plots have been allotted are traders of the Market Committee. He has contended that allegation is that the persons to whom the plots were allotted in auction have again transferred the same to the other persons; but such action is permissible as the conditions stipulated for auction itself states that the auction purchaser can transfer the shop to any trader of the market yard. Therefore there is no misappropriation or irregularity in the said transaction as alleged in the complaint. He has contended that only in case of 03 plots out of 26 plots it has happened that after taking part in the auction proceedings and after depositing the amount of Rs.1 lac the auction purchaser failed to pay the remaining amount and, therefore, the deposit paid by them have been forfeited and thereafter such three plots have been allotted to other traders who have bid the highest price of plot which was an average price fetched in the auction proceedings for the similar type of shops.

(3.) He has contended that complaint has been filed solely due to political rivalry existing between the parties. He has contended that keeping the political grudge in mind and with an ulterior motive and malafide intention the sham, fictitious, bogus and false complaint has been lodged against the Chairman, Members and Directors of the Market Committee. He has contended that father of the applicant was elected Member of Legislative Assembly for two terms. Because of his affiliation to public life, there are political rivals also. The father of the applicant was elected as Chairman of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Visnagar, for about 12 years. Since when the father of the applicant was denied ticket for the Legislative Assembly election by the ruling party, he resigned from the party membership and contested election against the official candidate of a ruling political party as an independent candidate, since then the father of the applicant and present applicant are harassed by filing false and frivolous complaints to finish their political career.