State of Gujarat vs Yogeshkumar Prabhulal Pandya

M.R. SHAH, J.—Present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the Petitioner -original applicant -State of Gujarat to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd.1/10/2010 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Summary No. 3 of 2010, by which the learned Special Court has accepted "C" Summary Report submitted by the investigating officer.

That an offence being CR No. I-6 of 2005 came to be registered with Rajkot ACB Police Station against the Respondent for the offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that while discharging his duty as a public servant for the period between 1/8/1983 and 20/11/2002, the Respondent accused has misused his power and has taken illegal gratification and thereafter he has purchased several movable and immovable properties in the name of his wife and son. It was alleged that as a result of which the Respondent accused is having properties worth Rs. 21,22,147/- which is more than his income during his service tenure.

That after the investigation the concerned investigating officer submitted "C" Summary Report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by submitting that No. case is made out against the Respondent accused. That the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot by the impugned order accepted "C" Summary Report submitted by the investigating officer. Hence, Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the Petitioner -original complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application by submitting that without considering the material and evidence on record, the learned Special Judge has accepted "C" Summary. It is submitted that even considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Special Judge ought to have passed an order for reinvestigation.

After the matter was argued for sometime, there is a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and under the telephonic instructions received by Mr. Pratik Jasani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent and Mr. Devang Nanavati, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Pratik Jasani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent has stated at the bar that let the impugned order be quashed and set aside and reinvestigation is ordered. He does not invite reasoned order while quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge accepting "C" Summary Report and while ordering reinvestigation.

In view of the above broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, recorded hereinabove and the request made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, this Court is not assigning further reasons and is not passing reasoned order while quashing and setting aside the the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge accepting "C" Summary and while ordering reinvestigation.

In view of the above broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, recorded hereinabove and request made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, this Court is not assigning further reasons and is not passing reasoned order while quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge accepting "C" Summary Report and consequently ordering reinvestigation of the offence in question.

In view of the above broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, recorded hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot dtd.1/10/2010 accepting "C" Summary Report submitted by the investigating officer of CR No. I-6 of 2005 registered with Rajkot ACB Police Station, Rajkot, is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently "C" Summary Report submitted by the investigating officer of CR No. I-6 of 2005 registered with Rajkot ACB Police Station, Rajkot is hereby rejected and not accepted and the investigating officer of the aforesaid offence is hereby directed to reinvestigate the offence and complete the reinvestigation within a period of three months from the date of the present order and submit appropriate report / chargesheet before the concerned court immediately. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.