Gujarat High Court
Anuj Ratanlal Jain vs State Thro Central Bureau Of … on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 08/07/2025
Pronounced On : 07/08/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 341 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ANUJ RATANLAL JAIN
Versus
STATE THRO CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAHUL M BAROT(9965) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
SHIVANI RAJPUROHIT(5377) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 07/08/2025
1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr.R.C. Kodekar waives
service of Rule for the respondent no.1 and learned A.P.P.
Mr.H.K. Patel waives service of Rule for the respondent
no.2.
Page 1 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
2. The present revision application, preferred by the
applicant – original accused under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, the “Code”), is directed against the order dated
30.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court No.1, Ahmedabad (Rural)
in CBI Special Case No.22 of 2022, rejecting the
discharge application of the present applicant – accused
vide exh.19.
3. The short facts leading to the filing of the present
revision application are that as per the case of the
prosecution, the present applicant has been arraigned as
an accused for the offence registered with Central Bureau
of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, Mumbai
on the basis of the written complaint filed by Mr.Dipankar
Das, Deputy General Manager & Zonal Head, Allahabad
Bank, Ahmedabad Zone, Ahmedabad in respect of the
offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)
Page 2 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the
“PC Act“), which came to be registered as
RC23(E)/2016/BS&FC/CBI/Mumbai.
3.1. It is the case of the prosecution that one M/s.Sai
Infosystem (India) Limited has taken financial facilities,
more particularly, term loan and working capital loan
(CC) amounting to Rs.1000 crores approximately from the
years from 2008 to 2012 from Consortium of Banks led by
SBI on the basis of certain government contracts of
which, the major one was Internet Data Centre (IDC)
Project in association with BSNL at four locations,
namely, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Ernakulum and Ranchi.
Upto the year 2012 and thereafter, by the end of year
2013, the company started facing financial crunches,
which led to default in payment of few installments and
non-payment of certain statutory dues and the employees
of the company filed a complaint with police and other
authorities and thereafter, the FIR came to be filed by
one Mr.Dipankar Das, Deputy General Manager & Zonal
Page 3 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Head, Allahabad Bank, Ahmedabad Zone, Ahmedabad.
3.2. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused company
and its directors did not repay the loans taken by them
and siphoned away the funds availed from the bank with
mala fide intentions and proceeds of the current assets
were not deposited in the CC Account and Drawing power
(DP) in the CC Account was manipulated by giving false
debtors in stock statements and the company showed
inflated dues from its debtors and the accused
fraudulently and dishonestly diverted the funds and
thereby, caused a wrongful loss to the Allahabad Bank to
the tune of Rs.51.62 crores approximately and
corresponding wrongful gain to the accused themselves
during the period of 2010-2013.
3.3. Initially, the FIR came to be filed against M/s.Sai
Infosystem (India) Limited and its Director – Mr.Sunil S.
Kakkad, other unknown directors of M/s.Sai Infosystem
(India) Limited and unknown public servants of the
Page 4 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Allahabad bank. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR,
the investigation has been carried out by the CBI and
subsequently, the chargesheet came to be filed before the
Court and total 10 persons have been arraigned as
accused and the present applicant has been shown as
accused no.10 in the chargesheet. The allegation against
the present applicant is that the present applicant –
accused dishonestly and fraudulently, in pursuance of
conspiracy with accused no.2 – Mr.Sunil Kakkad and
other accused persons, submitted false audit reports of
the accused company – M/s.Sai Infosystem (India)
Limited knowing fully well that the debtors and
outstanding amount reflected against each of them, were
not genuine and thereby, induced the bank to continue
with the disbursement of the funds to the tune of
Rs.51.62 crores in order to cause pecuniary advantage to
M/s.SIS and Mr.Sunil Kakkad and corresponding
wrongful loss to the bank and the chargesheet has been
filed against the accused persons for the offence
punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the
Page 5 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act and substantive offences thereof.
3.4. The present applicant – accused has preferred an
application before the learned trial Court under Section
227 of the Code for discharge vide exh.19 and the same
came to be rejected by the learned trial Court. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same, the present
revision application has been filed.
4. Learned advocate Ms.Shivani Rajpurohit for the
applicant – accused has submitted written arguments. It
is submitted that the present applicant is a partner of one
Dharmesh Parikh & company and had conducted the
audit of the accounts of M/s.Sai Infosystem (India)
Limited for the financial years 2010-11, 2011-12 and
2012-13. It is submitted that as per the case of the
prosecution, without verifying the list of creditors and
debtors, the present applicant has made false
submissions in the audit reports for the said three
Page 6 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
consecutive years and in connivance with the director of
the company, misled the bank and led to an unjustified
increase of the drawing power allocation for M/s.SIS,
which resulted into continuous and unauthorized
withdrawal of the funds under the cash credit limit and
ultimately caused wrongful loss to the bank and as the
present applicant, in his capacity as a partner of
Dharmesh Parikh & Company, is the accused of failing to
verify the crucial financial records during the statutory
audit for the aforesaid financial years, which allegedly
misrepresented the financial position of M/s.SIS. As a
result, the banks were misled into allowing inflated
drawing powers, which facilitated the ongoing and
improper withdrawal of the funds and ultimately, led to
significant financial loss to the bank. It is submitted that
the present applicant – accused has been falsely
implicated in the commission of the alleged offence and
erroneously made as an accused no.10. It is further
submitted that the learned trial Court has rejected the
discharged application despite the absence of cogent
Page 7 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
evidence, linking the present applicant with the alleged
fraudulent activity and discharge application was
dismissed without due consideration.
4.1. It is submitted that the present applicant, as an
independent auditor, was fulfilling his statutory obligation
and had no role in the financial decision of the company
or the bank and no evidence has been produced to
establish that the present applicant was a part of any
fraudulent scheme or conspired with the other accused
mainly, the company officials. There is no material to
establish the element of any fraudulent intent or gainful
misconduct on the part of the present applicant. The
auditors are relying upon the documents presented by the
management and are not responsible for verifying the
veracity or financial transactions and the present
applicant has adhered to all the professional and ethical
standards prescribed by the institution.
4.2. It is submitted that the chargesheet papers do not
Page 8 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
provide any direct evidence, linking the present applicant
with the alleged fraudulent activity. Further, it is
submitted that the learned trial Court has also not
appreciated the fact that the auditing profession in India
is governed by the Standards on Auditing issued by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and these
standards provide a framework for auditors to conduct
their work with due diligence and professional
skepticism. Further, it is submitted that the present
applicant has acted in a good faith in accordance with his
professional standards and fulfilled his professional
duties. It is submitted that the proposals for extension of
credit facility were required to be scrutinized by the
branch manager and due diligence was to be ensured by
him. It is submitted that the process note for the accused
company was prepared by the then Chief Manager and
AGM of the branch and after verifying the credibility and
financial credentials of the company, they proposed
business against the requested credit facility. Further, it
is submitted that as per the request of the company,
Page 9 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
limits were proposed by the branch after due diligence
and the branch is also appearing in the appraisal note
and the appraisals made by the delinquent has been
accepted. So, most of the factors were taken from the SBI
appraisal but, in some factors, such as calculation of
working capital, internal rating/pricing, terms and
conditions recommended for post and pre-disbursement,
Allahabad bank had done its own calculations and
recommendations and the banks also relied upon the
Techno Economic Viability report of the said project,
which was submitted under the instructions of the SBI by
one M/s.Gajjar Techno Economic Consultations Private
Limited, which was also on the penal of the SBI then. It
is submitted that usually, the banks are relying upon TEV
reports for the assessment and appraisal of the credit
facilities. Further, at no point of time, the present
applicant has verified or submitted any list of debtors or
stock. It is submitted that the present applicant, on the
basis of the assessed risk, has structured the audit
process and also calculated the revenue from sales and
Page 10 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
services, made inventory reports, prepared the list of
receivables and also prepared analytical procedures and
thereby, the present applicant has done his duty as an
auditor with utmost sincerity and best of his ability
regarding the Debtor Balances. It is submitted that in
spite of the same, the present applicant has been falsely
implicated in the commission of the alleged offence and
erroneously named as an accused. It is submitted that the
learned trial Court has not considered this aspect and
there is no iota of evidence in the material produced
along with the chargesheet and, therefore, the present
revision application is required to be allowed. It is further
submitted that the present applicant has been arraigned
as an accused only on the basis of the statement of one
Mr.Ajit Parmar and except this, no other witnesses have
stated anything against the present applicant – accused
and considering this, the present application is required
to be allowed and the order passed by the learned trial
Court may be quashed and set aside.
Page 11 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.R.C.
Kodekar for the respondent no.1 – CBI has vehemently
opposed the present revision application and submitted
that the order passed by the learned trial Court is just
and proper and does not require any interference. It is
submitted that so far as the role of the present applicant –
accused is concerned, he is a chartered accountant and
auditor of M/s.Sai Infosystem (India) Limited and
conducted the audit of M/s.SIS for the period from 2010-
11 to 2012-13 and M/s.SIS i.e. accused no.1 submitted an
application for term loan, cash credit facility and letter of
credit to Allahabad bank and the Allahabad bank
sanctioned the term loan and other facility of cash credit
limit of Rs.25 crores. It is submitted that the Allahabad
bank and consortium lead bank SBI showed that the
company has to submit an audit balance-sheet of M/s.SIS
and the audit of the account of M/s.Sai Infosystem (India)
Limited was done by the present applicant – accused on
behalf of Dharmesh Parikh & Company for the period
2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 and it is coming on record
Page 12 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
that the accused – M/s.SIS has submitted false debtors
list on the instructions of accused no.2 – Mr.Sunil Kakkad,
who is a director of the company and later on, the same
was affirmed by the present applicant, who is an auditor
of the company, in connivance with accused no.2 –
Mr.Kakkad to the consortium bank. It is submitted that
the investigation also revealed that the present applicant
conducted the audit of the account of M/s.SIS and during
that period, without verifying the list of creditors and
debtors, made false submissions in the audit report for
continuous three years and mislead the bank in
conspiracy with accused no.2 – Mr.Kakkad, which
resulted into higher drawing power allocation and
continuous withdrawal of funds under the CC limits,
which ultimately resulted into wrongful loss to the bank.
It is further submitted that the present applicant in
connivance with accused no.2, has dishonestly and
fraudulently submitted false and incorrect audit balance-
sheet to cheat the bank, showing that the debtors
mentioned by M/s.SIS are correct, without verifying the
Page 13 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
genuineness of the debtors.
5.1. It is submitted that investigation reveals that
M/s.SIS, accused no.2 – director – Mr.Sunil Kakkad, Shri
Bharat Gajjar of M/s.Gajjar Techno Economic
Consultations Private Limited, M/s.Trimax IT
Infrastructure & Services Private Limited and other
accused persons have acted in criminal conspiracy with
public servants i.e. Shri Bimalkumar Mitra, Smt.Shashi
Singh and Sanjay Kumar Sharma, who in abuse of the
official position, without public interest, disbursed the
amount to the accused no.1 – company, without legal or
genuine entitlement and thereby, cause wrongful loss to
the Allahabad bank to the tune of Rs.51.62 crores and
corresponding gains to themselves. It is submitted that
the present applicant dishonestly and fraudulently
submitted false audit reports in connivance with the
accused persons and further, the applicant was fully
aware that the debtors and outstanding amounts
reflected against each of them of the company, were not
Page 14 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
genuine and thereby, induced the bank to continue with
the disbursement of the funds to the tune of Rs.51.62
crores and the said fact has already been narrated by the
statement of Mr.Ajit Parmar. In the said statement, it is
specifically stated that as per the audit report submitted
by the present applicant – Mr.Anuj Jain, the company has
shown higher outstanding against the actual outstanding
and further helped the company by preparing audit
report to obtain higher drawing power. It is submitted
that considering the same, the learned trial Court has
rightly come to the conclusion that sufficient material has
been produced by the investigating agency along with the
chargesheet to frame the charge against the present
applicant and hence, no illegality has been committed by
the learned trial Court and the present revision
application is required to be dismissed.
6. After considering the rival submissions made by the
learned advocates for the respective parties, perusing the
impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court and
Page 15 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
also perusing the documents of the chargesheet produced
along with the present application, it is required to be
considered that weather the present applicant has proved
that the order passed by the learned trial court, rejecting
the discharge application, is against the settled principles
of law, perverse and against the facts and material
produced along with the chargesheet and no offence has
been made out against the present applicant for framing
the charge.
7. The shorts facts of the case are already been
narrated above. So far as the role attributed to the
present applicant is concerned, as per the case of the
prosecution, the present applicant, who is a partner of
Dharmesh Parikh & company, is conducting the audit of
the accounts of the accused no.1 – company dishonestly
and fraudulently and in connivance with accused no.2 –
Mr.Sunil Kakkad and other accused persons, submitted
false audit reports of the accused no.1 – company,
knowing fully well that the debtors and outstanding
Page 16 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
amount reflected against each of them, were not genuine
and thereby, induced the bank to continue with the
disbursement of the funds to the tune of Rs.51.62 crores
in order to cause pecuniary advantage to the accused
no.1 – company and accused no.2 – Mr.Sunil Kakkad,
corresponding wrongful loss to the bank and committed
the offence.
8. In this regard, it is profitable to peruse the decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat
vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao reported in 2023(17)
SCC 688. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court,
while invoking the revisional jurisdiction for deciding the
case against the discharge application, has observed
regarding the power under Section 397 of the Code as
under:-
7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind
being necessary to determine whether a case has
been made out by the prosecution for proceeding
with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell
Page 17 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
into the pros and cons of the matter by examining
the defence of the accused when an application
for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge
has to merely examine the evidence placed by the
prosecution in order to determine whether or not
the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the
accused on basis of charge sheet material. The
nature of the evidence recorded or collected by
the investigating agency or the documents
produced in which prima facie it reveals that
there are suspicious circumstances against the
accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice
and such material would be taken into account for
the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused necessarily, the accused would be
discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after
such consideration of the material there are
grounds for presuming that accused has
committed the offence which is triable, then
necessarily charge has to be framed.
8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking
cognizance the accused has no right to produce
Page 18 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
any material and call upon the court to examine
the same. No provision in the Code grants any
right to the accused to file any material or
document at the stage of framing of charge. The
trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the
facts of the case as may be necessary to
determine whether a case has been made out by
the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-
sheet material only.
9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the
chargesheet material at the stage of framing the
charge which might drastically affect the very
sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest
that such material should not be considered or
ignored by the court at that stage. The main
intention of granting a chance to the accused of
making submissions as envisaged under Section
227 of the Cr.P.C. is to assist the court to
determine whether it is required to proceed to
conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the
ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral
arguments only and therefore, the trial court can
consider the material produced by the accused
Page 19 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
before the I.O.
10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge the court
must proceed on an assumption that the material
which has been brought on record by the
prosecution is true and evaluate said material in
order to determine whether the facts emerging
from the material taken on its face value, disclose
the existence of the ingredients necessary of the
offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu
Vs. N. Suresh Rajan And Others (2014) 11 SCC
709 adverting to the earlier propositions of law
laid down on this subject has held:
“29. We have bestowed our consideration to
the rival submissions and the submissions made
by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that
at the time of consideration of the applications for
discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of
the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift
evidence in order to find out whether or not the
allegations made are groundless so as to pass an
order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of
Page 20 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
consideration of an application for discharge, the
court has to proceed with an assumption that the
materials brought on record by the prosecution
are true and evaluate the said materials and
documents with a view to find out whether the
facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value
disclose the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At this stage,
probative value of the materials has to be gone
into and the court is not expected to go deep into
the matter and hold that the materials would not
warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs
to be considered is whether there is a ground for
presuming that the offence has been committed
and not whether a ground for convicting the
accused has been made out. To put it differently,
if the court thinks that the accused might have
committed the offence on the basis of the
materials on record on its probative value, it can
frame the charge; though for conviction, the court
has to come to the conclusion that the accused
has committed the offence. The law does not
permit a mini trial at this stage.”
Page 21 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
11. The defence of the accused is not to be looked
into at the stage when the accused seeks to be
discharged. The expression “the record of the
case” used in Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to be
understood as the documents and articles, if any,
produced by the prosecution. The Code does not
give any right to the accused to produce any
document at the stage of framing of the charge.
The submission of the accused is to be confined to
the material produced by the investigating
agency.
12. The primary consideration at the stage of
framing of charge is the test of existence of a
prima-facie case, and at this stage, the probative
value of materials on record need not be gone
into. This Court by referring to its earlier
decisions in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Som
Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP
Vs. Mohan Lal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the
nature of evaluation to be made by the court at
the stage of framing of the charge is to test the
existence of prima-facie case. It is also held at the
stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a
Page 22 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
presumptive opinion to the existence of factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it
is not expected to go deep into probative value of
the material on record and to check whether the
material on record would certainly lead to
conviction at the conclusion of trial.
13. The power and jurisdiction of Higher Court
under Section 397 Cr.P.C. which vests the court
with the power to call for and examine records of
an inferior court is for the purposes of satisfying
itself as to the legality and regularities of any
proceeding or order made in a case. The object of
this provision is to set right a patent defect or an
error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which
has crept in such proceedings. It would be
apposite to refer to the judgment of this court in
Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra (2012) 9 SCC
460 where scope of Section 397 has been
considered and succinctly explained as under:
“12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court
with the power to call for and examine the records
of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying
Page 23 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
itself as to the legality and regularity of any
proceedings or order made in a case. The object of
this provision is to set right a patent defect or an
error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-
founded error and it may not be appropriate for
the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the
face of it bears a token of careful consideration
and appear to be in accordance with law. If one
looks into the various judgments of this Court, it
emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be
invoked where the decisions under challenge are
grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the
provisions of law, the finding recorded is based
on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or
judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but
are merely indicative. Each case would have to be
determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the
revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very
limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine
manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it
should not be against an interim or interlocutory
Page 24 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
order. The Court has to keep in mind that the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not
lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is
dealing with the question as to whether the
charge has been framed properly and in
accordance with law in a given case, it may be
reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls
within the categories aforestated. Even framing of
charge is a much advanced stage in the
proceedings under the CrPC.”
15. The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate
court and start appreciating the evidence by
finding out inconsistency in the statement of
witnesses and it is not legally permissible. The
High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that
trial court was dealing with an application for
discharge.”
9. Considering the above law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court, now, it is required to be considered whether
the order passed by the learned trial Court, rejecting the
Page 25 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
discharge application, is perverse and is against the
settled principles of law.
10. At this stage, the material produced along with the
chargesheet papers is required to be considered. From
the chargesheet papers, it is coming on record that (i) the
accused no.1 – company, through its chief promoter –
accused no.2 – Mr.Sunil Kakkad, has availed the credit
facilities from the bank being the CC facility of Rs.500
crores and TL facility worth Rs.50 crores from SP Nagar
branch of Allahabad Bank, which was sanctioned to the
accused company out of consortium allocated the limits to
the complainant bank as TL of Rs.35 crores to part
finance to the Internet Data Centre (IDC) Project in
association with BSNL at four locations, namely,
Bangalore, Hyderabad, Ernakulum and Ranchi at the
project cost of Rs.240 crores under consortium
arrangement led by SBI and CC of Rs.25 Crores as a
share of total working capital limit of Rs.251.00 crores
assessed by the consortium leader SBI.
Page 26 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
(ii) The accused company and its directors did not repay
the loans taken by them and siphoned away the funds
availed from the bank with malafide intention and the
proceeds of the current assets were not deposited in the
CC account and Drawing Power (DP) in the CC account
was manipulated by giving false debtors in stock
statements. The accused no.1 – company showed inflated
dues from its debtors and thereby, accused has
fraudulently and dishonestly diverted the funds and
thereby, caused a wrongful loss to the Allahabad Bank to
the tune of Rs. 51.62 crores.
(iii) The present applicant, who has been shown as
accused no.10 in the chargesheet, is a Chartered
Accountant and auditor of accused no.1 – M/s.Sai
Infosystem (India) Limited and conducted audit of the
accused no.1 – company for the period 2010-11, 2011-12
and 2012-13.
Page 27 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
(iv) The audit of the account of accused no.1 – company
was done by the present applicant on behalf of the firm
Dharmesh Parikh & Co., Ahmedabad for the period 2010-
2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013. It was found that the
accused no.1 – company has submitted false debtors list
on the instructions of the accused no.2 – Mr.Sunil Kakkad
and later on, it was affirmed by the present applicant,
who is the auditor of the company, in connivance with the
other accused to the consortium banks. It appears that
the audit conducted by the present applicant for the
period 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, was without
verifying the list of creditors and debtors and made false
submission in the audit reports for continuous three years
and thereby, misled the banks, which resulted into higher
drawing power allocation and continuous withdrawal of
the funds under CC limit and the accused no.1 – company
submitted inflated and false debtors’ list for the
companies and the present applicant, in connivance with
the other accused persons, has submitted false and
incorrect audited balance-sheet, showing that the debtors
Page 28 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
mentioned by accused no.1 – company are correct,
without verifying the genuineness and he has not
personally verified the exact number of the debtors and
the amount.
11. Further, from the chargesheet papers, it appears
that the present applicant, dishonestly and fraudulently,
in pursuance of conspiracy with accused no.2 and other
accused persons, submitted the false audit reports, which
were not genuine and thereby, induced the Bank to
continue with the disbursement of the funds to the tune
of Rs. 51.62 crores in order to cause pecuniary advantage
to accused nos.1 and 2. The present applicant has
submitted the list of debtors without verifying the list of
creditors and debtors and making false submissions in
the audit report.
12. Further, the statements of the witnesses have been
recorded by the investigation agency and as per the
statement of one Mr.Ajit Parmar, who, at the relevant
time, was a Senior Manager of Allahabad Bank, Rajkot,
Page 29 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
after verifying the audit report of the accused no.1-
company, conducted by the present applicant on behalf of
firm of Dharmesh Parikh & company wherein, it is stated
by the present applicant that as per the information and
explanation given, the inventories have been physically
verified the management, except for the stocks lying with
the third parties, which have been confirmed by them and
the debtors of the accused no.1 – company to whom, the
stocks have been forwarded or delivered during the audit,
outstanding were affirmed from them and a note has been
made under the ‘receivables’ that the debtors of the
company as well as the respective receivables are
considered reasonable. As per the audit report of
31.03.2012, the audit of the accused no.1 – company was
conducted by the present applicant. It is also mentioned
that the inventories have been physically verified the
management, except for the stocks lying with the third
parties, which have been confirmed by them. It is also
stated in the audit report that the debtor is required to
affirm the outstanding directly from the debtors but, the
Page 30 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
verification was done by the present applicant directly
from the debtors on random basis and not through the
borrower company.
13. From the audit report, it appears that the company
has shown the higher outstanding against the actual
outstanding and helped the accused no.1 – company in
obtaining higher drawing power and because of that, it
led to further disbursement to the accused no.1 –
company and if it has been shown correct actual
outstanding, in such eventuality, the bank would not have
gone ahead for the further disbursement to the accused
no.1- company.
14. Considering the material produced along with the
chargesheet papers, prima facie involvement of the
present applicant has been found and sufficient material
has been produced along with the chargesheet and the
role attributed to the present applicant is prima facie
more than association and there is enough and sufficient
Page 31 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
material to frame the charge against the present
applicant.
15. I have also perused the findings recorded by the
learned trial Court, while rejecting the discharge
application. I do not find any jurisdictional error of law
committed by the learned trial Court and the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court are just and proper,
considering the material produced by the prosecution. I
also do not find any merits in the present revision
application and, therefore, present revision application is
devoid of merits and is required dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision
Application No.341 of 2025 is hereby dismissed. The
order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court No.1, Ahmedabad
(Rural) in CBI Special Case No.22 of 2022, rejecting the
discharge application preferred the present applicant –
Page 32 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/341/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
accused vide exh.19, is hereby confirmed. Rule is
discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Hitesh
Page 33 of 33
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:11:10 IST 2025