Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajnikant Dudhabhai Parmar on 11 August, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 595 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJNIKANT DUDHABHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR L B DABHI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR BP JHALA(6076) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 11/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The present revision application has been preferred by
the State of Gujarat under Section 397 read with Section 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against order dated
Page 1 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
13.09.1999 passed below Exh. 1 in Sessions Case No. 319 of
1998, Session Case No. 352 of 1998 and Sessions Case No.
168 of 1999 discharging the accused.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on
23.03.1998, between 7:30 AM and 8 AM, complainant Tarun
Kumar Amritlal Barot, Police Inspector, Crime Branch Police
Station, on receiving information, raided the premises of one
Saira Banu Ishaq Ibrahim Shaikh. During the raid, there was
an exchange of fire with sophisticated weapons between the
raiding party and the persons occupying the said premises. In
the said incidence, six persons expired, and a large quantity of
RDX, grenade, rifles, cartridges, and cellular phones, along
with AK 56 rifles, magazines, and live cartridges were
recovered during the course of investigation. Initially, four
persons were charged, and a case was registered as
Sessions Case No. 319 of 1998. Further investigation led to
the other accused persons being arrested at different times,
and supplementary charge sheets were also filed. Cases were
registered as Sessions Case No. 352 of 1998 and Sessions
Case No. 168 of 1999. The offences are registered under
sections 120, 122, and 307 of the IPC, as well as under
sections 25(1A) and 1B read with sections 28, 35, and 36 of
the Arms Act, and sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosive
Substance Act. While the first three sessions cases werePage 2 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
conducted before the learned sessions judge for framing of
charges, one accused, namely Rajinikanth Duhai Parmar,
accused No. 5, preferred an application below Exhibit 1 under
the provisions of section 227 of the CRPC 1973 for
discharging him. Pending hearing and final disposal of the
said application, all the accused preferred an application
under section 227 of the CRPC for discharging them for the
offences. The learned sessions judge was pleased to
discharge the present respondent -original accused, whereas
the rest of the four came to be tried for the charges against
them. It is against the said order of discharge that the present
application is preferred by the State.
3. Learned APP Mr. L B Dabhi has mainly raised the
following contentions:
(1) That the learned judge has failed to appreciate that the
investigation clearly reveals that the respondent accused were
involved in the offence against them;
(2) That the learned judge has failed to appreciate that if
there is a case against the accused, charges ought to have
been framed;
(3) That the trial court has committed a serious error, both
on law and on facts, by having discharged the accusedPage 3 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
despite a prima facie case; and that the learned judge has
failed to appreciate that there is a chain of conspiracy, and
each conspirator may not have knowledge of other parts of the
conspiracy, but this itself does not absolve them from being
part of the conspiracy.
(4) The learned sessions judge has failed to appreciate that
the conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution in the present
case is a part of different conspiracies, and each conspiracy
put together makes one conspiracy; therefore, all the accused
ought to have been charged by the learned sessions judge.
(5)The trial judge has failed to appreciate that each
conspirator might have played a different role without the
knowledge of the other conspirators, but when each of them
plays their part in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the
accused ought not to have been discharged.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Praveen Gondaliya appears for
respondent No.1, and advocate Mr. BP Jhala appears for the
rest of the respondents. At the relevant point of time, Mr. HN
Jhala had placed on record written arguments. In the nutshell,
the arguments for the original accused are to the effect that
while deciding the present criminal revision application, the
appellate court is only required to follow the basic principle as
to whether the case involves a substantial question of law
Page 4 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
which requires interference at the hands of the appellate court.
That is to say, this court, unless otherwise established, may
not interfere in questions of fact. The evidence appearing
against each of the accused, if considered against the present
respondents number 1 to 4 collectively, the charge of criminal
conspiracy under section 120B is levelled against each of the
accused. To prove a conspiracy, it is settled by a series of
judgments that there cannot be direct evidence for the same,
and for that very reason, the legislature has wisely enacted
the provisions of section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is
not necessary that the act should have been connected with
each of them. It is also not necessary that there must be a
meeting of minds, but at the same time, some overt act is
required to constitute the conspiracy.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No. 8,
present respondent No. 4, who was in judicial custody in
connection with case No. 8 of 1993, had hatched the
conspiracy while in Sabarmati Jail. It is alleged that he, Javed
Khan, made several telephone calls through a cellular phone
within the jail premises to Pakistan, where his brother Sharif
Khan is residing. However, despite a thorough search of the
personal belongings of Javed Khan, no cellular phone was
recovered from his possession or even from the prison, and
no statement of jail authorities has been recorded by the
Page 5 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
investigation officer. However, the prosecution has come out
with the case that in all, 148 calls were made through one
person, who was the owner of a telephone booth, by Javed
Khan. It is alleged that two statements of one Mehjabeen, the
owner of the telephone booth, were recorded on 27.07.1998.
In the second statement recorded on the same day, it is stated
that out of 152 telephone calls made between 14.07.1998 and
15.07.1998, 149 calls which she had asked to connect came
from Sabarmati area. According to this statement, these calls
were at the instance of Javed Khan, who had asked for a
conference from Viren Sabarmati Jail and was asked for
conference to phone No. 009221 belonging to Karachi,
Pakistan, and telephone No. 583229. From the record of the
mobile phone number. from which Javed Khan had asked for
the conference, no information is forthcoming. On record
absence of these numbers, it cannot be said that a particular
telephone asking for conference at a particular number in
Pakistan was made by Javed Khan. Even assuming that the
payment was made by Nasir Khan, one of the accused from
whom the mobile was recovered, still, the accused Nasir Khan
was not in jail.
6. It is further contended that all persons, including the
advocates, were searched for possession of any such material
or instrument, and even visiting the jail could not have entered
Page 6 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
the premises with a mobile phone. Therefore, it is highly
improbable that any mobile phone might have been
transferred by Nasir Mia to Javed Khan while visiting him in
jail. It is further contended that, most importantly, the
statements of jail authorities are not recorded. Therefore, in
absence of any evidence to show that Nasir, accused No. 6,
passed this mobile to Javed, cannot be inferred.
It is also not the case of the prosecution that Nasir Khan
had visited the jail and that there is an entry in the record of
the jail authority. It is for the contention there. Similarly, there
is no evidence on record against accused No. 6 and No. 7,
namely Nasir Miya and Ahmed Hussain. It is true that there
are two statements against these accused, coupled with the
fact that Nasir Miya is the real brother of accused No. 1, Saira
Banu. However, it is not that he was residing in the same
premises where a huge quantity of weapons were found and
seized. There is no documentary evidence to show that this
accused was residing in the premises from where the
weapons came to be recovered. There is no electricity bill,
ration card, or any document proving the said fact. The
statement of an accused cannot be read as evidence nor is
admissible in law, and therefore, also relying on such
statements by the prosecution, it cannot be said that a prima
facie case is made out against accused No. 6 and No. 7.
Page 7 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
It is further contended that merely giving money for
paying bills for repairs of mobile battery,etc, cannot be said to
be sufficient charges for the offence punishable under section
120B of IPC. As regards accused No. 7, Ahmed Hussain, he
is a servant of Nasir Miya; on the instruction given by his
master Nasir Miya, he had gone to pay the bill and therefore
cannot be saddled with the liability of committing any offence.
As far as accused No. 5 is concerned, i.e., Rajinikanth
Dudhhai Parmar, it is alleged that he was having links with
accused No. 1 and No. 8. Though there is a statement of an
independent witness alleging that he was in contact with Nasir
Miya and came with a chit of Javed Khan, which was to be
delivered to Saira Banu, however, this chit has never been
recovered. It is the allegation of the prosecution that this
accused was serving as a sipahi with Sabarmati Central
Prison and was in charge of some of the barracks and was
having links with accused No. 1 and No. 8. However, no
departmental inquiry has been initiated against this
government employee for the charges of unbecoming conduct
of a government servant by having connections with criminals.
Following judgments are relied by the Ld. Advocate.
(1) AIR 1975 SC 1960 : 1975 SCC CR.663 – Dulichand Vs.
Page 8 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
Delhi Administration.
(2) 1993 SC 1126 : 1993 CR.L.J 1029 – State of Karnataka
Vs. Appa Balu Ingale
(3) 1999 SCC (Cr.) 275 – State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana
Illath J. Namboodiri.
(4) 1997 SCC (CR.) 970 – Kaptan Singh.
7. Learned advocate Pravin Gondaliya for Respondent
No.1 – accused no. 5 has argued that:-
There is no evidence in the chargesheet connecting the
Respondent No. 1 – Org. Accused No. 5 with the alleged
offences. That the offence under Section 122 read with
Section 120 B of the IPC, Arms Act or Explosive Substance
Act or any other offence mentioned in the chargesheet.
Hence, the trial Court has correctly allow the discharge
Application vide order dated 15.09.1999. It is contended that
the Applicant was serving as a Jail Sepoy and he used to help
the Accused No. 8 by getting the battery of the mobile phone
charged from Sairabanu, Org. Accused No. 1. However, said
cell phone is not recovered from the present Applicant. That
no details have been collected or found with regard to the
alleged phone calls made by the accused No. 8 to one
Shariefkhan based at Karachhi, Pakistan. On the contrary, the
alleged cell phone has been recovered from the Accused
No.6.
Page 9 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused
No. 8 sent a chit to one Mahmed Maksud Rahim Miya Sheikh
through the present Respondent No. 1 – Org. Accused No. 5
which was to be given to Accused No. 1 Sairabanu and that
the Respondent No. 1 – Org. Accused No. 5 went with
Mahmed Maksud Rahim Miya to show the house of
Sairabanu, however, no chit is recovered. Not a single
statement of jail persons or jail authority has been recovered
to substantiate the allegations made against the present
Respondent No. 1. No departmental actions have been
initiated against the Org. Accused No. 5 and there is no
evidence to the effect that the Applicant had any pre-meeting
of mind with the other accused to commit any offence. That
even otherwise, the Trial Court has acquitted rest of the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 122 and
120-B of the IPC and ought of four accused who came to be
convicted and two came to be acquitted and thus there is no
charge. Thus, the charge of 120-B and 122 have not been
proved. The Trial Court was justified in discharging the
present Applicant. That there is no perversity or illegality
apparent on the face of the record. That there is no evidence
to assume or infer that the Respondent No. 1 had pre-meeting
of mind with the other accused for the alleged offences and
has thus, rightly discharged the present Applicant from the
charge levelled against him and thus, prayed to reject thePage 10 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
present Revision Application.
8. At the outset, the principal governing framing of charge
and the powers of revision as annunciated by the Supreme
Court in the case of State of Gujarat versus Dilipsinh
Kishorsinh Rao reported in (2023) 4 Cri. 146 requires to be
kept in mind while deciding the present revision application,
wherein it is held thus:-
“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
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.
Page 11 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking
cognizance the accused has no right to produce
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
charge- sheet 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
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:
Page 12 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
“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
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.”
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 notPage 13 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
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
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 Chander (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 anPage 14 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
inferior court for the purposes of satisfying 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 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.”
14. This Court in the aforesaid judgement has also
laid down principles to be considered for exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 397 particularly in the
context of prayer for quashing of charge framed
under Section 228 Cr.P.C. is sought for as under:
Page 15 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
“27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction
under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and
Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of
jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate
for us to enlist the principles with reference to which
the courts should exercise such jurisdiction.
However, it is not only difficult but is inherently
impossible to state with precision such principles. At
best and upon objective analysis of various
judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some
of the principles to be considered for proper exercise
of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing
of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together,
as the case may be:
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the
Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more
the power, the more due care and caution is to be
exercised in invoking these powers. The power of
quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the
charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code
should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether
the uncontroverted allegations as made from the
record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If
the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently
improbable that no prudent person can ever reach
such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients
of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court
may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere.
No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed
for considering whether the case would end in
Page 16 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or
quashing of charge.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the
courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the
facts, evidence and materials on record to determine
whether there is sufficient material on the basis of
which the case would end in a conviction; the court
is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as
a whole whether they will constitute an offence and,
if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to
injustice.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the
rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is
even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more
inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather
than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is
not expected to marshal the records with a view to
decide admissibility and reliability of the documents
or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.”
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. Thus, while framing the charge, what is to be seen is
whether the material placed before the court discloses grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly
explained. If so, the court will be fully justified in framing a
charge and proceeding against the accused. The court also
cannot enter into a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of
the matter and weigh the evidence as if conducting a trial.
Page 17 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
However, the court can form an opinion that the accused
might have committed the offence and can frame the charge.
Thus, at the time of framing charges, the probative value of
the material on record cannot be gone into, but before framing
a charge, the court must apply its judicial mind on the material
placed on record and must be satisfied that commission of
offence by the accused was possible. On perusal of the
impugned order, it clearly transpires that the learned trial
judge has ignored both the facts and the law operating in the
field of framing charge against the accused.
10. On perusal of the impugned order, the trial court has
recorded reasons to the effect that the statement of accused
No. 1 would not be sufficient to frame a charge against
accused No. 8, Javed Khan. However, the court has totally
given go by the statement of witness Maha Jabeen Parvez
Abdul Hussain Dholakia. There is no finding regarding the
statement of this witness. Why the statement before the
investigation agency has been ignored by the trial judge is not
apparent from the impugned order.With regard to accused No.
6, Nasir Miya, despite the learned APP drawing attention to
the statements of Mohammad Yaqub and two other witnesses,
the learned trial judge has miserably failed to consider such
statements and instead relied on the statement of accused
No. 1 Saira Banu–more particularly in giving a finding to the
Page 18 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
effect that the phone used by Javed Khan is the same as the
one recovered from Nasir Miya, which is not supported by the
record. The learned judge has also held that there is no
evidence on record, such as a ration card or electricity bill, to
indicate that Nasir Miya was residing with Saira Banu
(accused No. 1), this clearly amounts to appreciation of
evidence at the time of framing charges and roving inquiry
which is not permissible. The trial court ought to have only
seen whether a prima facie case is made out at least for
framing of charges rather than arriving at a conclusion as if a
trial is conducted and evidence is analyzed.
11. With regards to accused No. 7, Ahmed Hussain, the
learned judge has observed that “if at all, because of the
instruction given by his master, he had gone to pay the bill, he
cannot be saddled with the liability of committing such offence.
He is an unfortunate servant of a master who has asked him
to pay the bill, except that there is no evidence against him.”
This finding also seems to be based on assumptions without
considering the role of the accused person more, particularly
when section 120B of IPC has been invoked.
12. As far as accused No. 5, Mr. Rajinikanth Parmar, is
concerned, the learned trial judge has recorded reasons to the
effect that it is the case of prosecution that Rajinikanth was
Page 19 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
serving as a Sipahi with Sabarmati Central Prison, he was in
charge of some barracks and he was having link with accused
No. 8 and No. 1. The learned trial judge has further recorded
reasons to the effect that “if at all he was having any link, he
can be prosecuted for the offence which took place on
23.03.1998; if at all, he had taken the cell phone of Saira Banu
for the purpose of repair, can it be said that he was party to
conspiracy? If at all accused, Rajinikanth being a Sipahi of
Central Jail and having connection with the criminals, at the
most, he can be served with a notice by the department and
departmental action can be initiated for the act committed by
him. It can be said to be unbecoming of a Sipahi because he
was having connection with the criminals, as believed as per
the case of the prosecution. Still, he cannot be presumed to
be a conspirator.” Thus, accused No. 5 has also been
discharged, and that too based on assumptions. It seems that
the learned trial judge has lost sight of the principle that it
cannot enter into a roving enquiry. What is to be seen is
whether a prima facie case is made out or not, more
particularly when the charge is also of criminal conspiracy.
The trial court has thus gone into the evidence meticulously,
entered into a roving inquiry, and has lost sight of the
principles laid down in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh
versus Golkonda Linga Swamy, reported in (2010) 9 SCC
368, where it is held that it is immaterial whether the case is
Page 20 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
based on direct or circumstantial evidence and the charge can
be framed if there are materials showing the possibility about
commission of the offence by the accused as against
certainty. Thus, the trial Court failed to appreciate the material
on record pointing out the possibility about commission of the
alleged offence by the accused persons and instead ventured
into roving inquiry.
13. As far as the judgments relied on by the respondents are
concerned, in the case of Dhuli Chand (supra), it is held that
the High Court’s power of revision is severely restricted. It
cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence. It was a case
where the trial court convicted the accused, against which an
appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, which came
to be confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court in revision, which
came to be rejected. Against this, the accused went before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, which also rejected the criminal
appeal. The facts of the case are of no help to the accused.
However, this Court certainly has very restricted jurisdiction to
re-appreciate evidence after the trial is completed. The
present case is of exercising revisional jurisdiction against an
order of discharge, hence the case is of no help to the
respondents, the accused. The second case is State of
Karnataka versus Appa Balu Ingale (supra), where also under
the provisions of section 401 of CrPC, the power of High Court
Page 21 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
in revision against concurrent findings is discussed, and it is
held that ordinarily it is not open to the High Court to interfere
by appreciating evidence. This case is also of no help to the
accused.The third case is State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath
Jathavedan Namboodiri (supra), where it is held that in
revisional jurisdiction the High Court cannot be equated with
appellate jurisdiction and reappreciation of evidence is not
permissible unless it has resulted in gross miscarriage of
justice. The last judgment is the case of Kaptan Singh and
others versus State of MP and another (supra), where it is
held that the High Court should not interfere with an order of
acquittal unless there is manifest illegality or grave
miscarriage of justice. This Court is bound by the ratio laid
down in the above-referred cases, but the cited cases are of
no help to the accused.
14. This Court is aware of its limited re-visional powers.
However, as held in the case of Vinay Tyagi versus Irshad Ali,
reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 (para 18), “Normally, revisional
jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law.
However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must
find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding.
Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice
is done, and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely
an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a
Page 22 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
sufficient ground for interference in such cases.”Thus, the
learned trial judge erred both on the factual aspect as well as
the legal aspect, and therefore, this is a fit case to exercise the
revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court to set right the
perversity prima facie reflecting from the impugned order,
discharging four accused persons by brushing aside settled
principles of law, more particularly by entering into a roving
inquiry, weighing the evidence and coming to conclusions
based on assumptions and presumptions despite there being
prima facie material showing the possibility about commission
of the offences by the accused coupled with the fact that
material also discloses grave suspicion against the accused
which has remained unexplained.
15. In view of the above findings, the present Application is
allowed and the impugned order dated 13.09.1999 below Exh.
1 discharging the accused is set aside.
16. Trial Court to frame charges against present
Respondents and proceed with the trial in accordance with
law.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 23 of 23
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:10:18 IST 2025