Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sachinkumar Manubhai Patel on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.RA/252/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 252 of 2022
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SACHINKUMAR MANUBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RC KODEKAR APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KUMAR H TRIVEDI(9364) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 12/09/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this revision application, the applicant-State
has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 07.01.2022
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at
Himmatnagar below Exhibit-1 in Criminal Misc. Application
No.22 of 2022 whereby, the said application was disposed of
with the following observations:
"3. As the offence under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) of
IPC is punishable up to seven years, as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Arneshkumar v. State of Bihar reported in 2014 (8) SCC
273 (SC), it is mandatory on the part of the Investigating
Officer to issue the notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.
and record the reasons of arrest. But, in the present case,
R/CR.RA/252/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2022
as no such notice is issued, therefore, applicants have
approached this Court.
4. Considering the aforesaid aspect, it is expected that
concerned I.O. of Prantij Police Station shall have to
follow the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).
5. In case of any difficulty, applicants may have
liberty to approach this Court and with aforesaid
direction present matter is disposed of."
2. The facts in brief are that on 17.12.2021 a complaint
came to be registered against the respondent herein and other
accused persons being FIR No.11209041211735 before Prantij
Police Station, Sabarkantha for offences under Sections 406,
409, 420 and 120B of IPC inter alia alleging that the
respondent along with other co-accused had circulated and
utilized the examination paper for recruitment to the Post of
Head Clerk Class-3 that was to be conducted on a future date.
In connection with the said complaint, the respondent had
preferred an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking
anticipatory bail before the Court below. The said application
came to be disposed of by way of the impugned order.
R/CR.RA/252/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2022
3. Learned APP Mr. Kodekar appearing for the applicant-
State submitted that the Court below has seriously erred in
holding that the offence alleged against the respondent was
punishable for a maximum period of seven years only. He
pointed out that the impugned complaint was filed under
Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B of IPC and that Section 409
of IPC provides with punishment of imprisonment for life or
for a term which may extend upto 10 years and fine. It was,
accordingly, urged that the impugned order passed by the
Court below is erroneous and bad in the eyes of law.
4. Heard learned advocates on both the sides. This Court
finds substance in the submission made by the learned APP
since Section 409 of IPC provides with punishment of
imprisonment for life or for a term which may extend upto 10
years and fine and accordingly, the Court below has seriously
erred in holding that the judgment rendered in Arneshkumar's
case (supra) would be applicable to the present case.
R/CR.RA/252/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2022
5. It appears that the respondent-accused had preferred
Criminal Misc. Application No.4259 of 2022 under Section 438
of Cr.P.C. before this Court, which came to be allowed vide
order dated 11.07.2022.
6. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects, no further
orders are required to be passed in this matter, as the present
application has become infructuous. Consequently, the
application stands disposed of. Rule is discharged. Interim
relief stands vacated.
(SAMIR J. DAVE, J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
