Gujarat High Court
Achal Rajbir Tyagi vs State Of Gujarat on 25 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/322/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED
BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 322 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==================================================
ACHAL RAJBIR TYAGI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==================================================
Appearance:
MR. NIRUPAM D. NANAVATY, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR BN
LIMBACHIA(3454) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MEET THAKKER, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 25/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] Rule. Mr. Meet Thakker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. [2] The present application is filed under Section 397 read with Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:40:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/322/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") challenging the order dated 09.02.2024 below Exhibit '125' in Sessions Case No.36 of 2020. [3] The brief facts resulting into filing of the present revision application are that the Sessions Case No.36 of 2020 came to be initiated against the accused person under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). The trial was conducted and during pendency of trial, the deposition of the Investigating Officer was scheduled to be done on 05.12.2023. An application was filed by the concerned Investigating Officer, namely Mr. B. V. Patel for seeking an adjournment from the learned court on that particular date, i.e., on 26.10.2023 for the purpose of law and order situated in the District. The reason for seeking adjournment was due to permission being not granted by the District Superintendent of Police at the relevant point of time, i.e., present revision applicant. Pursuant to the adjournment application, preferred by the concerned Investigating Officer, the learned Sessions Court issued a show-cause notice to the Superintendent of Police, Mehsana, i.e., present applicant asking him to explain as to why action should not be taken against him as he has tried to overreach the order of the Court by not permitting the concerned Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:40:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/322/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined Investigating Officer to attend the Court. It was observed that the action of applicant has resulted into obstructing and discharging of duty and further interrupting into the dischargement of duty of the learned Sessions Court. In wake of such observation, present applicant was directed to remain present before the learned Sessions Court on 30.12.2023.
[3.1] Pursuant to the show-cause notice and direction passed by the learned Sessions Court to remain present on 30.12.2023, the present revisionist applicant preferred an application for exemption and in turn Mr. R. I. Desai, Deputy Superintend of Police appeared in person before the learned Sessions Court and stated that on 30.12.2023, news had come that a bomb had been planted in Jammu Tawi Express that has left Ahmedabad and was on its way to Mehsana. In view of such situation, the revisionist applicant could not remain present. At the request of the applicant, the matter was posted on 06.01.2024. Even on that day, the revisionist applicant again requested for an adjournment through a written application as he was engaged in his official duties. Therefore, the learned Session Court passed an order on 06.01.2024, granting a last date and posted the matter on 09.02.2024. It was the case of the applicant that he was suffering from conjunctivitis and was, therefore, not in a position Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:40:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/322/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined to appear because of the health conditions. Therefore, an application was made to the learned Sessions Court requesting to grant a date, preferably 16.02.2024, so that the applicant could be in a position to appear before the learned Sessions Court.
[3.2] After considering the application made by the revisionist applicant, the learned Session Court passed the impugned order dated 09.02.2024, whereby the learned Sessions Court observed that the applicant had obstructed in proceedings before the learned Sessions Court and also obstructed the Sessions Court in discharging its public duty without just cause which results an offence under Section 186 of the IPC. It was also observed that application of exemption on 09.02.2024 was given after order was passed. In wake of such observations, by way of impugned order, the learned Sessions Court passed an order that in view of Section 195 of the Code, the Registrar may direct to file complaint under Section 186 of the IPC. This order is impugned in the present revision application. [4] Heard Mr. Nirupam D. Nanavaty, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. B. N. Limbachia, learned advocate appearing for the applicant and Mr. Meet Thakker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:40:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/322/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined [5] Mr. Nirupam D. Nanavaty, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. B. N. Limbachia, learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the genesis of the entire matter lies in the non- appearance of the Investigating Officer Mr. B. V. Patel before the learned Sessions Court on 05.12.2023 for deposition in Session Case No.36 of 2020. In wake of the absence of Mr. B. V. Patel, the learned Court has taken an adverse view observing that the present applicant, who was the Superintendent of Police, Mehsana, at the relevant point of time, has obstructed the functioning of learned Sessions Court in discharging its duty. However, such issue is required to be seen in right perspective that on the said day, i.e., on 05.12.2023, about 7 officers of the rank of Police Sub Inspectors and above had sought permission from the applicant, i.e., the Superintendent of Police to appear before the different Courts. Through a common F.T.P. message, permission was granted to 5 officers and two were asked to request for an adjournment before the respective Courts and Mr. B. V. Patel was one of them. This was because that the applicant was top officer in charge of the duty of the District and had to ensure that at every point of time, he has enough force at his disposal to control the law and order situation. Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:40:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/322/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined [5.1] It was further submitted that pursuant to the show-cause notice and even before an explanation was sought from the present applicant, the deposition of concerned officer, Mr. B. V. Patel, was over on 29.12.2023, which can be seen from the rojkam / order- sheet, which is appended at page '51' of the paper-book. It was further submitted that it was only an administrative decision to allow most of the officers to attend the Court proceedings and retain back some of them to meet with any emergency. This situation cannot be construed as an act of obstructing the duty of the learned Sessions Court. It was further submitted that on day, i.e., on 05.12.2023, Mr. B. V. Patel was given the first date for his appearance and giving his deposition. Given the heavy responsibilities that the police personnel carry, there may be occasions that they may not be able to appear on that day. However, the concerned officer has duly complied and the deposition was over on 29.12.2023 itself.
[5.2] It was submitted that after the show-cause notice was issued to the present applicant, there were instances, wherein the applicant was to remain present, but due to some situation, he could not remain present and for which the reasons were duly explained in the application that was preferred by the revisionist applicant seeking exemption. Even in the last application, which was preferred on Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:40:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/322/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined 09.02.2024, the applicant had shown his willingness to remain present on 16.02.2024. On perusal of the application, which was submitted on the date of passing of the impugned order, i.e., on 09.02.2024, it can be seen that the present applicant had requested the learned Sessions Court for a convenient date, preferably 16.02.2024, so that he can appear in person. It was further submitted that the applicant was suffering from medical conditions and suffering from cough, cold and conjunctivitis. In view of the same, another date on 16.02.2024 was requested. However, the learned Sessions Court observing that the application was submitted pursuant to passing of the order at Exhibit '125' has recorded that there was no reason left for to hear the application preferred by the revisionist applicant. In view of the same, the learned Sessions Court discarded the application made by the revisionist applicant and pass the order which is impugned in the present revision application. [6] Per contra, Mr. Meet Thakker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has stated that pursuant to the application, the deposition has been recorded and trial is concluded. The concerned officer has given his reasons for not appearing before the learned Court and also requested for a future date for personal appearance. In view of the same, appropriate order may be passed.
Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:40:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/322/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined [7] After hearing the arguments canvassed by learned advocates of both the sides and perusing the material on record, the first issue is with regard to whether the non-appearance of the concerned Investigating Officer, Mr. B. V. Patel, would result into obstructing of the proceedings of the learned Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.36 of 2020. As can be perused from the order-sheet, pursuant to the adjournment application, it can be seen that on 05.12.2023, Mr. B. V. Patel, the concerned Investigating Officer had asked for an adjournment in view of the direction given by the concerned Superintendent of Police, i.e., the present revisionist applicant. Thereafter, on 20.12.2023 after 15 days, the concerned Investigating Officer, Mr. B. V. Patel, remained present and his deposition was recorded and thereafter, on the next date i.e. on 29.12.2023, the cross-examination of the concerned officer was over. Therefore, after completion of deposition of the concerned Investigating Officer Mr. B. V. Patel, summons were issued to the present applicant to show-cause as to why the concerned Investigating Officer did not remain present on 05.12.2023. Thereafter, some adjournments were sought by the present revisionist applicant. However, he had preferred an application showing his willingness to remain present on 16.02.2024. The reason given for not remaining present on Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:40:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/322/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined 09.02.2024 was his health condition. Therefore, the observation made by the learned Sessions Court that the present applicant had conducted himself in an act which can be construed as obstructing the proceeding of the Court in discharging its public duty cannot be countenanced. It is true that a public officer should diligently abide by the direction given by any Court. However, the act for which he had remained absent was completed even before the show-cause notice was issued prior to the first date of issuance of notice. Then it cannot be a case of obstructive the public duty of the learned Sessions Court.
[8] In the humble opinion of this Court, it appears that the learned Court has misinterpreted and wrongly observed that the concerned officer has obstructed the duties of the Court when it is evident that the deposition of the concerned police officer was recorded on 20.12.2023 and 29.12.2023 straightaway after the issuance of summons and even the present revisionist applicant had shown his willingness to remain present. Yes there were some adjournments sought but present applicant had shown willingness to remain present on 16.02.2024. Even today, by way of an affidavit filed by the revisionist applicant has stated that at some point of time due to limited manpower some commitment cannot be honoured and that Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:40:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/322/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025 undefined may not be construed as showing disregard to the orders of the Court. It was further submitted in additional affidavit that it would be his endeavour and duty to hold law in letter and spirit. In view of the same, this Court do not feel that the act of present revisionist applicant was in any way in disregard of obstructive duty of the learned Sessions Court. Therefore, the order passed below Exhibit '25' directing to initiate a complaint under Section 186 of the IPC pursuant to provisions of Section 195 of the Code is required to be quashed and it is hereby quashed.
[9] In view of the same, the revision application stands allowed. No order as to costs. Rule is made absolute.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.) DHARMENDRA KUMAR Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:40:16 IST 2025