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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
