KALAVATIBEN MADHUSUDAN VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr.Dharmesh Nanavaty on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Ronak Raval on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) By way of this application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.11214021211425 of 2021 registered with Kosamba Police Station, District Surat (Rural) on 22/12/2021 for offences punishable under Ss. 198 , 406 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 409 , 120(B) and 114 of IPC.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty for the applicant would submit that the FIR has been filed in relation to a Resolution passed by the Members of the Gram Panchayat, Kuvarda on 30/3/2013 and whereas the present applicant, at the relevant point of time, was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of the Village in question. Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty would submit that the allegation as levelled in the FIR inter alia being that a Resolution had been allegedly passed by the Members of the Gram Panchayat on 30/3/2013 and whereas in spite of the fact that such Resolution was not found in the Resolution Book of the Gram Panchayat, yet some decisions had been taken on basis of such Resolution and whereas some loss is alleged to be caused to the Government. Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty would submit that as such according to Rule 40 of the Gujarat Panchayat Procedure Rules, 1997, it would be the duty of the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat to ensure that Resolutions are noted in the Resolution Book. Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty would submit that as a matter of fact, the then Secretary of the Gram Panchayat one Mr.Rakeshkumar Bhogilal Modi had been arraigned as accused No.1 in the FIR and whereas even proceedings had been initiated departmentally against the said Secretary and the Secretary inter alia also alleging negligence insofar as the incident of not transcribing the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat dtd. 30/3/2013 in the Resolution Book. Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty would submit that the said accused vide his reply dtd. 1/9/2017 to the charge-sheet had inter alia admitted that by mistake he had not transcribed Resolution dtd. 30/3/2013 into Resolution Book. Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty would specifically take this Court to the averments at paragraph 5 of the reply where the said accused had inter alia submitted that "the General Body of the Gram Panchayat had met on 30/3/2013 and whereas the proceedings had not been recorded by the Secretary and whereas the Resolution had not been transcribed in the Resolution Book by inadvertence". Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty would submit that such an admission by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat at least four years prior to filing of the FIR would clinch the issue in favour of the present applicant. Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty would submit that even as far as the alleged loss caused to the Government is concerned, it appears that the loss was with regard to soil which had been excavated and which had been used without paying royalty. Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty would submit that later on the Geologist had assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.1,27,227.00 and whereas one of the contractors, again who was an accused in the FIR, had also paid the said amount to the office of the Geologist. Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty would refer to a challan dtd. 7/12/2018, whereby it shows that the said amount of royalty had been paid. Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty would submit that as such on the date of filing of FIR since the accused No.1 had already admitted that the Resolution was not transcribed on account of inadvertence and since the alleged loss caused to the Government had already been paid up by one of the co-accused, there was no cause for the State to have filed the FIR in the first place, more particularly against the present applicant. Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty would further submit that the applicant being a lady accused, more particularly at the relevant point of time, being the Sarpanch, she is ready and willing to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Having regard to the same, learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty would request that the present applicant may be granted anticipatory bail in the present case.