Gujarat High Court
Vipulbhai Mansinhbhai Chaudhary vs State Of Gujarat on 15 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 428 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
VIPULBHAI MANSINHBHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRUPAM D NANAVATI, SENIOR COUNSEL with MR RJ
GOSWAMI(1102) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR HARDIK DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MR.RONAK B. RAVAL,
APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 15/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This application has been filed by the present applicants under Section 438 read with Sections 442 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. By way of the present application, the applicants have challenged the order passed by the learned Special Court in Application below Exh-256 in ACB Case No.9 of 2022 as well as the charge framed by the Special Court against the present applicants vide Exh-257.
Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present application are as such that the offence being C.R.No.I/8 of 2020 came to be registered with C.I.D. Crime, Gandhinagar Zone on 11.12.2020 for the offence punishable under Section 408, 409, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(1) (A) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (for short "PC Act") against the applicants herein as well as the other co-accused. The Investigating Agency carried out the investigation on the basis of the said F.I.R. and after conclusion of investigation, the Charge-sheet was filed against the present applicants and the other co-accused for the aforesaid offences and one of the applicants namely the applicant no.3 herein had preferred an application for discharge before the learned Special Court which was dismissed by the learned Special Court. The said applicant, however, chose not to challenge the said order further and thus, the order passed by the learned Special Court dismissing the application for discharge filed by the applicant no.2 has attained finality.
3.1 It is also pertinent to note that co-accused Moghjibhai Dhanjibhai Patel had also filed an application for discharge. The discharge application filed by him was also dismissed by the learned Special Court against which, the said co-accused has preferred the Revision Application before this Court and same is pending consideration. By way of interim order, the Special Court is directed not to frame charge against the said co-accused.
Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined 3.2 The applicants herein preferred an application before the learned Special Court vide Exh-256. It was mentioned in the said application that since the co-accused Moghjibhai Patel had preferred Criminal Revision Application No.1586 of 2024 before this Court challenging the order of the learned Special Court whereby the application filed by the said co-accused for discharge, was dismissed and this Court vide interim order had directed not to frame charge against him. It was, therefore, prayed that the trial of the present offence should be conducted against all the accused simultaneously and it was prayed that the trial qua the other co-accused including the present applicants be deferred till the final conclusion of the aforesaid Revision Application. The said application was dismissed by the learned Special Court vide order dated 31.01.2025 and learned Special Court, thereafter, proceeded on to frame charges against the present applicants vide Exh-257. Being aggrieved by order passed by the learned Special Court below Exh-256 and framing of charges against the present applicants vide Exh-257, the applicants herein have preferred the present Revision Application.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. N. D. Nanavati with learned advocate Mr. R. J. Goswami appearing for the applicants has submitted that though in the present Revision Application, the prayer is made against the order passed by learned Special Court below Application Exh-256, the applicants do not press the prayer in the application so far as it relates to the order passed by the learned Special Court below Application at Exh- 256 and challenge in the present Revision Application is limited Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined to the action on the basis of the learned Special Court in framing charges against the present applicants vide Exh-257. He has submitted that the Investigating Agency after conclusion of the investigation, filed a Charge-sheet against the present applicants and other co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 120(B), 114 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(1)(a)(b) and 13(2) of the PC Act. He has submitted that the offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as mentioned in the Charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer may have been made out against the present applicants herein. However, the offences alleged against the present applicants under the PC Act can by no stretch of imagination be said to have been made out against the applicants. It is not even the case of the prosecution that the applicants herein had demanded and accepted any illegal gratification. Therefore, there is no question of any offences punishable under the provisions of PC Act being made out against them. The applicants herein have also been charge sheeted by Investigating Officer for an offence punishable under Sections 13(2) of the PC Act. There is no material whatsoever on record which would indicate that the applicants herein were responsible for any criminal misconduct and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, is also not made out. At the best the applicants herein can be said to have misappropriated the money belonging to the dairy and that is an offence under the provisions of IPC. He has further submitted that the prosecuting agency has not obtained the sanction under Section 17(A) of the PC Act before prosecuting the applicants herein and as per the provisions of Section 17(A), the Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined Investigating Officer had no authority whatsoever to carry out any investigation without any such sanction having been obtained. Therefore, the entire Charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer pales into insignificance.
4.1 Learned senior counsel has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submission: -
In the case of Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2025) LiveLaw (Selection Committee) 273 In the case of V. C. Shukla vs. State through C.B.I. reported in (1980) Supp. SCC 92 4.2 He has, therefore, submitted to allow the Revision Application and quash and set aside the charges framed by learned Special Court against the present applicants.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave appearing for the respondent State has opposed the present application contending that applicant no.1 herein was a Chairman of the dairy and while working as such, he had sent "Sagardan" to the State of Maharashtra and Co-operative Tribunal had saddled the liability of depositing the amount of Rs.9 Crores with the dairy upon applicant no.1. To manage the funds for deposit of the said amount, the applicants herein and the other co-accused had evolved a mechanism whereby the employees of dairy were awarded bonus @ 18% and thereafter, the employees were directed by the applicants to withdraw 80% Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined of the amount of bonus deposited in their accounts and hand it over to the applicant no.2 and amount so obtained had been utilised for deposit of the amount of Rs.9 Crores with the dairy.
He has further submitted that the material available on record indicates that a Resolution was passed in the meeting dated 12.08.2019 by the Managing Committee of the dairy and it was decided that the employees of the dairy to be awarded bonus @ 18%. All the applicants herein were present in the said meeting and supported the said Resolution. Thus, the applicants herein actively participated in the meeting. As per the aforesaid Resolution, the amount of bonus was credited into the accounts of respective employees and upon instructions given by the applicant no.2 herein; the respective employees had withdrawn 80% of amount of bonus and had handed it over to applicant no.2. The Investigating Agency has recorded statements of several such employees. One such employee namely, Ajaykumar Priyakant Trivedi, who in his statement dated 14.12.2020 has stated that between 20.08.2019 to 25.08.2019 the amount of Rs.46,83,427/- of 82 employees was deposited into his bank account. For deposit of the said amount, the rubber stamp in the name of the said witness was prepared upon instructions of applicant no.2 herein. Such amounts were deposited in the accounts of several other employees also. He was instructed by applicant no.2 to keep the amount in his account till further instructions. Thereafter, he was instructed by applicant no.2 to deposit the amount lying in his bank account in the account of respective employees and thus, he had deposited amount of Rs.32,22,659/- vide Cheque No.930786 and those respective employees were thereafter instructed by applicant no.2 to Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined withdraw the said amount and hand it over to him in cash. Thus, the applicants herein had used corrupt practice to fulfill their obligation of deposit of the amount of Rs.9 Crores as per the order of the learned Co-operative Tribunal. The offence punishable under the provisions of PC Act is clearly made out against the present applicants. Judgments which are sought to be relied upon by learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants are of no use to the present applicants. He has further submitted that the present Revision Application is nothing but a tactic to delay the trial before learned Special Court. He has therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.
5.1 He has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:-
In the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another passed in Criminal Appeal No.1407 of 2012, dated 13.09.2012 In the case of M.Natarajan vs. State by Inspector of Police, Spe, Cbi, Acb Chennai reported in 2008 (0) AIJEL (Selection Committee) 41348 In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL (Selection Committee) 65711 In the case of Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and Others vs. State of Punjab reported in (2024) SCC OnLine Selection Committee 2622.Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined
6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material available on record.
7. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, the scope for this court to interfere with the impugned order of framing charge passed by learned Special Court in the present application is required to be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2018 (16) SCC 299] has held thus: -
"That the order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re- appreciate the matter."
8. Upon perusal of the material available on record, learned senior advocate appearing for the applicants is not in a position to convince the Court that by framing the charge against the present applicants learned Special Court has committed any patent error of jurisdiction.
9. It is also required to be noted that the applicant no.3 herein had filed an application for discharge before the learned Special Court which was dismissed by the learned Special Court Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined which has attained finality and the other applicants herein have chosen not to file any such application for discharge. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in the case of K. Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another has observed in Para-11 thus: -
"11. It is trite to say that Section 216 is an enabling provision which enables the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced, and if any alternation or addition to a charge is made, the court has to follow the procedure as contained therein. Section 216 does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge under Section 227 has already been dismissed. Unfortunately, such applications are being filed in the trial courts sometimes in ignorance of law and sometimes deliberately to delay the proceedings. Once such applications though untenable are filed, the trial courts have no alternative but to decide them, and then again such orders would be challenged before the higher courts, and the whole criminal trial would get derailed. Suffice it to say that such practice is highly deplorable, and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by the courts."
10. In view of the aforesaid observations from the Hon'ble Apex Court, the scope for this court to entertain the present application and to interfere with the orders of the learned Special Court impugned herein, is very limited.
11. To understand the dispute involved in the present Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined application, few facts are required to be mentioned. On 08.08.2019 an Annual General Meeting of Mehsana District Co- operative Milk Producing Union was called for. Along with the other subjects on the agenda of the said meeting, one subject was with regard to the staff of the union. It was proposed to pay incentive bonus to the employees @ 18%. As per the record, the employees were instructed to withdraw 80% of the amount of bonus in their respective accounts and hand it over to the applicants. Thereafter 30 employees / officers were given promise for promotion and rubber stamp in the names of 80 such employees / officers were prepared by applicant no.2. On 14.08.2019, the amount of Rs.14,80,70,022/- was deposited in the accounts of respective employees of the union towards bonus @ 18%. Those respective employees had thereafter withdrawn the said amount as instructed by applicant no.2 and handed over the said amount to him, who in turn had handed over the said amount to applicant no.1 herein and on 05.11.2019, the amount of Rs.9,00,10,651/- was deposited with Dudhsagar Dairy, Mehsana as directed by Co-operative Tribunal.
12. Upon perusal of the papers of investigation, it appears that the notice for meeting which was scheduled to take place on 12.08.2019 was issued on 05.08.2019 and along with the said notice, agenda for meeting was also circulated with the signature of applicant no.2. The record also indicates that the applicant no.3 had presided over the said meeting as a chairperson and other co-accused, namely, applicant nos.1 and 2 and other co-accused - Moghjibhai Patel were also present in the said meeting. They have also signed the attendance note Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined indicating their presence in the meeting. In the said meeting, in Resolution-9, it was resolved that the employees of union be paid an incentive bonus @ 18% and the applicant no.2 being Managing Director had signed the said Resolution. The Investigating Agency has recorded the statement of one Hitendra Puranchandra Sud during the course of investigation, who in his statement, has stated that he was working with Dudhsagar Dairy since 01.04.2013. Thereafter, he was promoted to Assistant Executive H.R. in 2016 and in August, 2020, he was further promoted as Executive H.R. as Admin. He has further submitted that in his salary account, an amount of Rs.80,909/- was deposited and he had handed over the cheque bearing Number 602185 for the amount of Rs.64,800/- to Ajaykumar P. Trivedi and the said cheque was deposited in his account on 22.08.2019. On 05.11.2019, the amount of Rs.64,800/- had returned to his bank account and Mr. Trivedi had instructed to pay the said amount in cash. Thereafter, he had deposited Rs.50,000/- in the account of his wife and on 06.11.2019, he had withdrawn Rs.64,800/- from the account of his wife and handed it over to Shri Ajay Trivedi on 07.11.2019. Ajay Trivedi in his statement dated 14.12.2020 given to the Investigating Officer has stated that prior to the meeting of the General Body of Sahyog, a meeting had taken place on 08.08.2019. the said meeting was attended by the board of directors of Sahyog, the Managing Director Bakshi, Vice Chairman, Becharbhai Chaudhari etc. and in the presence of Chairman and other members of the committee, Becharbhai Chaudhary had proposed that Vipul Chaudhary - applicant no.1 was required to deposit money as per the order of Tribunal and therefore, he was Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined to be helped and hence, the employees should not withdraw the amount of incentive bonus. In the year 2019, it was resolved to pay incentive bonus to the employees @ 18% though over the years, such incentive bonus was paid to the employees @ 8.33%. For the purpose of payment of incentive bonus, an approval note was required to be submitted by him. However in the present case, such approval note was not prepared by him but on 08.08.2019, the Managing Director - Nishit Jyotindra Baxi - applicant no.2 herein had prepared the approval note and had also signed the said approval note. The said note was taken by him to the meeting and the Resolution of payment of incentive bonus @ 18% was passed in the meeting on 12.08.2019. The payment of such bonus was made from the account maintained with the HDFC Bank, Mahesana. The applicant no.2 herein had signed the list of employees to whom incentive bonus was to be paid and which was to be recovered from them, was sent to the other units of the Dudhsagar Dairy situated in the other States vide email on 14.08.2019. Such list was prepared by the present applicant no.2 with the help of Hitendra Sud and Rakesh Shukla. Between 20.08.2019 to 25.08.2019, the amount of Rs.46,83,427/- was deposited into his account towards payment of incentive bonus to 82 employees. Thereafter, he was called by applicant no.2 and was instructed that he was required to pay the said amount back to the applicant no.2 as and when asked for. The rubber stamp required for deposit of the said cheques were also got prepared at the instruction of applicant no.2. Thereafter, he was instructed by applicant no.2 that the amount which was lying in his account be deposited in the accounts of the respective employees and therefore, he had issued cheques Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined for the amount of Rs.32,22,659/- from his bank account for deposit of the said amount in the accounts of respective employees and those employees were, thereafter, instructed by applicant no.2 that after the amount was credited in their accounts, they should withdraw the same and pay the said amount in cash to him. Accordingly, 62 employees had paid the amount of Rs.32,22,659/- to the applicant no.2 on 05.11.2019. He has further stated that the amount of incentive bonus of the other employees was also deposited in his bank account and an amount of Rs.10,52,367/- was paid by him to the applicant no.2 in cash. Another witness - Narendrabhai H. Chaudhary in his statement dated 05.02.2021 has stated that he was called by present applicant no.2 in September / October, 2019 and he was handed over the said cash by applicant no.2 and was instructed to hand over the said cash to the applicant no.1. From the material available on record, it can be said that the amount of Rs.9 Crores which was required to be deposited by the applicant no.1 with the dairy pursuant to the order of Co-operative Tribunal, was managed by the present applicants, by taking recourse to the aforesaid mechanism. It can be prima facie said that the funds of the dairy itself had been misused for payment of the said amount of Rs.9 Crores. The record further indicates that the applicants herein had managed to collect the amount of more than Rs.14 Crores from the employees. It also emerges that from amount so collected, the amount of Rs. 9 Crores was deposited with the Dairy and the remaining amount was invested by the applicants in the shares of Jainam Industries Petro and had availed profit thereon. The mechanism adopted by the present applicants amounts to nothing but a corrupt Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined practice. The Investigating Agency, therefore, does not appear to have committed any error in filing a Charge-sheet against the present applicants for the offences referred to herein-above.
13. It is also sought to be contended on behalf of the applicants that no sanction under Section 17(A) of the PC Act was obtained by the Investigating Agency prior investigation into the present offence. The applicants herein have chosen to remain silent of this aspect till filing of the present application before this Court. There is nothing on record to indicate that any such contention had been raised by any of the present applicants before the learned Special Court on any occasion. The sanction under Section 17(A) would be required, if the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of his official function. The material on record prima facie indicates that from the very inception, the intention of the applicants was to commit the present offence and it was in furtherance of this intention that the acts alleged against the applicants were carried out. As per the settled law, to get the advantage of the protective umbrella of sanction, there has to be some nexus between the official duty of the accused and the act alleged against him. The Apex Court in its recent judgment in case of G C Manjunath & Others V/S Seetaram in Para 36 has observed that "If the act is wholly unconnected or manifestly devoid of any nexus to the official function of the public servant, the requirement of sanction is obviated." The act alleged on the part of the applicants is of misappropriation of the funds of the dairy and as discussed hereinabove, the funds of the dairy have not only been used for Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined deposit of the amount as per the direction of the Tribunal but the same have also been invested in the shares and profit is earned out of it. Therefore, there is no nexus by any distance between the official function of the applicants and the acts alleged against them. Thus, the acts alleged on their part cannot be equated with the official function or official duty which is the prerequisite of Section 17(A). Therefore, the argument in this regard on behalf of the applicants does not hold any ground and the same requires rejection.
14. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants has vehemently contended that there is apparently no demand of any illegal gratification or acceptance of the same by any of the applicants and therefore, the basic ingredients for the offence of corruption are not present against any of the applicants. The applicants herein are charged with an offence punishable under Section 13 of the PC Act which deals with fraudulent misappropriation of the property by public servant. The material on record, as discussed herein-above, prima facie indicates fraudulent misappropriation of funds of the dairy by the applicants. Therefore, the absence of the ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification would be of no significance in the present case. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghanai (Supra) therefore, would render no assistance to the applicants.
15. It is also sought to be contended by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant that the charge has not been appropriately framed by learned Special Court and the Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of V. C. Shukla (Supra) is pressed into service in this regard. However, learned Senior Advocate is not in a position to convince this court as regards the errors allegedly committed by the learned court. Assuming for the sake of argument that the charge framed by the learned court is erroneous, that by itself would not entitle the applicants to challenge the same. As per Section 464 of Cr.P.C., the applicants are required to show failure of justice caused due to the alleged error in the charge. Having failed to show any such failure of justice, this argument also would be of no help to the applicants.
16. It is also required to be noted that the order passed by learned Special Court below Exh-256 is also challenged in the present Revision Application though this prayer is not pressed by learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants at the time of hearing. This conduct on the part of the applicants herein indicates that the applicants are interested in delaying the trial and present Revision Application also appears to have been filed with the only intent to delay in trial as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of K.Ravi (supra).
17. Having regard to these facts, the present application is devoid of merits and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the applicants before the High Court Legal Services Committee.
18. After the order is pronounced, learned advocate Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/428/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined Mr. R. J. Goswami appearing for the applicants prays to extend the interim arrangement which was made by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2025.
19. However, having regard to the reasons given by this Court for dismissal of the present application, the prayer made by learned advocate Mr. R. J. Goswami appearing for the applicants cannot be entertained and hence, this prayer is rejected.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) NABILA Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 22:23:29 IST 2025