Gujarat High Court Stays Trial Against State BJP Minister Purshottambhai Solanki In ₹400 Crore Alleged Fisheries Scam

The Gujarat High Court stayed trial against BJP minister of state for fisheries Purshottambhai Odhavji Solanki, accused of awarding dams for breeding fishes to various persons without issuing tender as per policy and thereby allegedly getting "illegal financial benefits" to the tune of Rs 400 crores. 

The high court observed that the trial court proceeded to frame charges against Solanki when the further cross examination of the complainant had not been carried out by the defence. It thus said that, without evidence being led, trial court should not have framed charges against the minister in the case. 

After hearing the submissions and perusing the material on record Justice Divyesh A Joshi in his interim order observed, “…Prima facie it is found out that despite the fact that specific direction was issued by this Hon'ble Court that after recording the evidence of the witnesses, the discharge application be preferred, however when the said application was preferred, it was rejected, however the documents available on record clearly goes on to show that uptill now, further cross examination of the respondent no.2 had not been carried out by the defence, therefore without leading evidence on record, the court concerned ought not to have proceeded further to frame the charge against the accused.”

Solanki is booked for offences under sections 7 (Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act), Section 8 (Taking gratification to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means), Section 13(1)(d) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant, including obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt means or abuse of position) and Section 13(2) (Punishment for criminal misconduct by a public servant) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

The court further issued notice on Solanki's plea seeking quashing of trial court order which rejected his discharge application, and listed the matter on April 22. 

It further said, "Ad-interim relief in terms of Para No.7(B) till then". As interim relief, Solanki in his plea had sought "stay of further proceedings" of Special (ACB) Case No. 4 of 2015 pending before the Sessions Judge, pending the final disposal of Solanki's plea before the high court.

Background

Solanki's counsel began by contending that the respondent no. 2 – complainant had filed a private complaint. An order was passed based  under Section 202 CrPC (Postponement of issue of process) against which a writ petition was filed and dismissed as premature. Thereafter the court concerned, based on the complaint, issued process against the accused.

This was again challenged before the high court and the same was not entertained. However at that time, specific observations are made by the high court that the offences warrant trial. The court had then also said that before taking cognizance upon the fact and framing charge against the accused persons, "pre-charge evidence is required to be allowed and sufficient opportunity of cross-examination of the witness would be provided to the applicant". The court had then also said that the applicant (Solanki) has got valuable time to file discharge application under Section 245 of the CrPC.

He submitted that at the time of leading evidence of the witnesses, the advocate who was representing Solanki could not remain present, therefore his right was closed. Solanki then filed  an application to recall the witness, which was not entertained by the trial court at the relevant point of time. Aggrieved by this Solanki moved the high court, which was allowed.  However the complainant assailed this order before the Supreme Court by filing SLP, which is pending. 

He further submitted that however on the ground of pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court, the complainant is not entering into witness box despite issuance of summons. He further said that the complainant submitted an application, by reiterating the said fact to the effect that unless and until the decision is taken by the Supreme Court in the SLP, he would not be in a position to depose before the trial court and since then, the matter is pending at that stage.

He submitted that a proper opportunity to conduct cross-examination had not been provided to Solanki and the trial court has proceeded further with the trial. He submitted that without considering the material available on record, the trial court passed an order rejecting Solanki's discharge application.

He further submitted that the trial court has specifically opined that at the time of deciding earlier application, the High Court had earlier given a specific finding and, therefore no further action is required to be taken and prima facie it seems that basic and essential ingredients to constitute the offence is made out and the discharge application by assigning detailed reasons, came to be rejected.

He further submitted that now the trial is at the stage of framing of charge and if the charge is framed, in that event, great prejudice would be caused to the applicant.

The complainant claimed that he was doing business of fishing, getting a dam, lake or pond on lease and purchasing fishes from contractor who are breeding fishes. He alleged that during 2007-2008 the complainant came to know that Gujarat government will give these dams for fisheries by inviting tenders. He decided to participate in this tender.

However the complainant allegedly came to know in 2008, that the petitioner being the Minister of Fisheries department, gave these dams to various persons getting "illegal financial benefits/gratification to the tune of Rs. 400 crores" without calling for tender. 

Case Title: Purshottambhai Odhavi Solanki vs State of Gujarat & Anr.

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. HS Tolia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parth Tolia, Advocate and Mr. Utpal Dave, Advocate.

Counsel for the State: Mr. Rohan Shah, APP

Click Here To Read/Download Order