Rule. Mr.Raval, learned APP waives service of rule for respondent No.1 and Mr.Buch, learned advocate waives service of rule for respondent No.2 - State.
The instant petition is filed, seeking quashing and setting-aside of the judgment and order dated 23.2.2010 passed by learned Addl.Principal Judge, Court No.2, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.173 of 2009 whereby the Addl.Sessions Judge, while partly allowing the said revision application, quashed and set-aside the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.13, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.180 of 2007.
As the chargesheet came to be filed against the applicant - original accused as well as other co-accused persons regarding the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 415, 418, 420 etc. of the IPC, which was numbered and registered as Criminal Case No.180 of 2007, the applicant herein filed an application u/s.239 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the trial Court for discharge. The trial Court vide detailed order dated 18.2.2009 allowed said application and ordered discharge of the applicant - accused from said case. The revisional Court vide impugned order dated 23.2.2010 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.173 of 2009 partly allowed said revision application, quashing and setting-aside the order of the Magistrate.
Having considered the submissions advanced by Mr.Unwala, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.Buch, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 herein, it transpires that the revisional Court only considered page No.9 in the prospectus and observed that the applicant though was professional Director, but the investment strategies and policies etc. of the company, which was required to be decided by Committee comprising Shri Bipin Mehta and co-accused Shri Narendra P.Mehta was to take decision under the professional guidance of the applicant and the co-accused. It is submitted that the revisional Court did not examine any other relevant aspect of the matter, more particularly the averments made on internal page No.11 in the prospectus. It is further submitted that in almost identical facts, when the trial Court had dismissed the discharge application of accused involved in said matter, the revisional Court remanded said matter.
However, Mr.Buch, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed this application and submitted that the revisional Court rightly interfered with the order passed by the Magistrate, as considering the order passed by the Magistrate, no cogent and clear reasons are assigned. It is, therefore, submitted that the application may be dismissed.
I have perused the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It appears that undergoing detailed discussion, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the applicant deserves discharge. However, perusing the impugned order passed by the learned Addl.Principal Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.173 of 2009, it transpires that only the reliance was placed upon some averments made on internal page No.9 in the prospectus. However, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge did not discuss the other grounds assigned by the learned Magistrate in his order regarding discharge of the applicant. In above view of the matter, the learned advocate Mr.Unwala for the applicant rightly submitted that as a matter of fact, the order passed by learned Addl.Principal Judge, Court No.2, cannot be said to be a reasoned and speaking order.
In above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Criminal Revision Application No.173 of 2009 deserves to be remanded to the concerned Court to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law.
In the result, in this order, no merits are examined and the concerned sessions Court shall be at liberty to decide said revision application afresh in accordance with law uninfluenced by this order.
For the foregoing reasons, this application is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 23.2.2010 rendered by learned Addl.Principal Judge, Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.173 of 2009, is quashed and set-aside. Criminal Revision Application No.173 of 2009 is remanded to the concerned Court with a specific direction to decide said revision application afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the sides. Since the revision application is of the year 2009, the concerned learned Addl.Sessions Judge, shall hear and decide said application, as expeditiously as possible.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) (binoy) Top