DEEPAK DWARKADAS PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
DEEPAK DWARKADAS PATEL
Click here to view full judgement.
N.H. BHATT -
(1.) This petition raises an interesting and important question regarding the interpretation of clause (8) of sec. 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973
(2.) A few facts require to be slated:- On 12-9-77 one Mr. P. J. Sheth one of the engineers of the Gujarat Electricity Board lodged a first information report with Sabarmati Police Station alleging offences under sec. 417 42 165 468 471 201 and 114 of the I. P. Code. The allegation was that some capacitors rejected initially were sold to the Board because they were accompanied by the certificates of fitness which were ultimately found to be forged. In the F.I.R. these petitioners the proprietors of one concern were said to be the persons responsible for that forgery for the purpose of cheating the Gujarat Electricity Board. The PSI Mr. Gadhavi attached to the Sabarmati Police Station conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet under sec. 173 of the Cr. P. Code Mr. Gadhavi however mentioned these two persons as witnesses in the case and impleaded five persons as the accused. The learned Magistrate started examining the case for the purpose of deciding what charge should be framed and at the stage the Public Prosecutor incharge of the State orally mentioned before the learned Magistrate that these two petitioners who were initially named as the accused in the first information report and who were cited as witnesses were in fact in his opinion the accused. It seems that the matter stood adjourned on that day but the accused apprehended that perhaps under the advice of the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case in the earned Magistrates court they might be harassed by being arrested and so they sought from the Sessions Court Ahmedabad anticipatory bail. It seems a notice was issued to the Police Officer Mr. Gadhavi who declared before the learned Sessions Judge that he did not contemplate any such arrest. That application for anticipatory bail was therefore not pressed.
(3.) It seems that then the wheels moved and PSI Mr. Gadhavi under the orders of his superiors submitted an additional charge-sheet seeking to delete the petitioners from the list of witnesses in the Column of the earlier charge-sheet and prayed for their being impleaded as the accused. The learned Magistrate has accepted the charge-sheet. The original petitioners have therefore moved this court by challenging the submission of that additional charge-sheet and its entertainment by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the Police Station Officer had no such authority at 13w to submit an additional charge-sheet one the chargesheet under sec. 173 of the Cr. P. Code was filed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.