The State of Gujarat. Vs. Ravisinh Bhupatsinh. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[aftab alam ; r.m. lodha, jj.] the appellant- university on march 1, 1996 issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of deputy registrar and assistant registrar by direct recruitment. the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as assistant registrar was as under:-respondent no.1, who was an employee of the university, made applications both for the posts of deputy registrar and assistant registrar. respondents 4 and 5 were placed in the select list at ranks iv and v respectively. on the basis of the select list, prepared by the selection committee, respondent nos. 4 and 5 were appointed as assistant registrars. 5. the writ petition was opposed by the university. it was, accordingly, submitted that respondent no.1 was ineligible for appointment to the post of assistant registrar. the division bench found and held that respondent no.1 was not eligible to be considered for the post of deputy registrar and, hence, rejected his case in so far that post is concerned. coming, however, to the post of assistant registrar, the division bench took the view that selection committee had not assigned any reason for putting respondent nos. 4 and 5 above respondent no.1 in the select list. no material has been produced before us to show that it is the selection committee which upon assessment of merit of the appellant and respondent nos. 4 and 5, found appellant was less meritorious than the respondent nos. 4 and 5. in the first place the division bench overlooked that according to the statutory eligibility criterion only a section officer or a p.a.-cum-stenographer was eligible to be considered for appointment as assistant registrar and respondent no.1 was a head assistant. the division bench seems to have overlooked that while respondent nos. 4 and 5 were at ranks iv and v in the select list, respondent no.1 was at rank xiii and by brining him at par with respondent nos. 4 and 5, the division bench clearly ignored the claims of the seven candidates who figured in between from rank vi to xii and who were above respondent no.1.1. challenge in this appeal filed under section 378(1)(3) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, is the correctness of the judgement and order dated 3.1.2007 rendered in special (a.c.b.) case no. 20 of 1994 by learned special judge, amreli, by which the sole respondent-accused has been acquitted of the offences under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the prevention of corruption act.2. mr. bhavin s. raiyani, learned advocate for the sole respondent accused, has filed a note dated 8.1.2011 before the registrar of this court praying to list the above numbered criminal appeal on board in view of the fact that the sole respondent-accused has expired on 4.7.2010. he has also annexed death certificate of the sole respondent-accused.3. pursuant thereto, the registry has placed the above numbered criminal appeal before us for passing appropriate orders.4. at the time of hearing of this appeal, mr. dabhi, learned app, has placed on record the communication dated 13.1.2011 sent by the police inspector, amreli, acb police station, amreli, addressed to the public prosecutor of the high court, ahmedabad, along with statement of shailesh ravisinh, son of the sole respondent-accused as well as death certificate of the sole respondent-accused.5. upon perusal of the death certificate issued by the chief officer, amreli nagarpalika and the statement of shailesh ravisinh, son of the respondent-accused, we have noticed that the sole respondent accused has died on 4.7.2010.6. in view of this, the instant criminal appeal filed by the state of gujarat against the sole respondent-accused deserves to be abated.7. hence the appeal stands abated.

Judgment:
1. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is the correctness of the judgement and order dated 3.1.2007 rendered in Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 20 of 1994 by learned Special Judge, Amreli, by which the sole respondent-accused has been acquitted of the offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Mr. Bhavin S. Raiyani, learned advocate for the sole respondent accused, has filed a note dated 8.1.2011 before the Registrar of this Court praying to list the above numbered Criminal Appeal on board in view of the fact that the sole respondent-accused has expired on 4.7.2010. He has also annexed Death Certificate of the sole respondent-accused.

3. Pursuant thereto, the Registry has placed the above numbered Criminal Appeal before us for passing appropriate orders.

4. At the time of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Dabhi, learned APP, has placed on record the communication dated 13.1.2011 sent by the Police Inspector, Amreli, ACB Police Station, Amreli, addressed to the Public Prosecutor of the High Court, Ahmedabad, along with statement of Shailesh Ravisinh, son of the sole respondent-accused as well as Death Certificate of the sole respondent-accused.

5. Upon perusal of the Death Certificate issued by the Chief Officer, Amreli Nagarpalika and the statement of Shailesh Ravisinh, son of the respondent-accused, we have noticed that the sole respondent accused has died on 4.7.2010.

6. In view of this, the instant Criminal Appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against the sole respondent-accused deserves to be abated.

7. Hence the appeal stands abated.