Ramanbhai Bholidas Patel vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Ramanbhai Bholidas Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 22 July, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/SCR.A/9553/2025                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                         R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 9553 of 2025

                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
                       ==========================================================
                               Approved for Reporting          Yes        No
                                                                √
                       ==========================================================
                                         RAMANBHAI BHOLIDAS PATEL
                                                     Versus
                                              STATE OF GUJARAT
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR IH SYED, SR. ADVOCATE with MR MOHIT A GUPTA(8967) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR HARDIK DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MS SHRUTI PATHAK for the
                       Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                           Date : 22/07/2025
                                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat.

[1.0] Present Special Criminal Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short "BNSS") by the petitioner seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 07.07.2025 passed below Exh.73 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Sanand, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.706 of 2024, whereby the learned Magistrate has been pleased to allow application Exh.73 filed under Section 348 of the BNSS (section 311 of the CrPC) by the prosecution to examine additional two witnesses.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined [2.0] Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. I.H. Syed assisted by learned advocate Mr. Mohit Gupta appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave assisted by learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak appearing for the respondent - State of Gujarat.

[3.0] Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the present petitioner is an under-trial prisoner and investigation is concluded and charge-sheet is filed on 13.03.2024. Prosecution has cited 16 witnesses in the charge-sheet out of which 13 witnesses are private persons and 3 are Investigating Officers. He has submitted that though a statement has been made by the State before the highest Court of the country that prosecution will be examining only 16 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, but now the prosecution filed application Exh.73 seeking to allow the prosecution to examine additional 5 witnesses and thus, the prosecution is not following the due procedure of law and as and when it wants, is producing the documents. Section 207 of the CrPC is not properly complied with by the prosecution. Though the defence has given an application Exh.5 praying to provide list of relied and unrelied documents from the prosecution, in piece meal manner, during the course of trial, as and when prosecution wants, they are tendering the documents which causes serious prejudice to the defence of the accused. Nonetheless, the alleged witnesses are irrelevant and there is no need to examine them. Even otherwise, said witnesses are also not cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet. Even, prosecution has failed to examine 5 witnesses under Section 311 of the CrPC (section 348 of the BNSS) though Court has been pleased to pass an order to Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:06:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined examine only 2 witnesses and defence has given the consent for the same. Further, he has submitted that the impugned order is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the learned Magistrate did not consider the fact that the prosecution is trying to fill up the lacunae in their case during the trial by introducing new witnesses, which would adversely affect the right of defence of the accused as they are not cited as witnesses in the chargsheet and statements are also not recorded during the investigation. Further, the trial is at the verge of completion and accused has already disclosed his defence and hence, at belated stage, such permission is against the law. The learned Magistrate has misread the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 461 which never allow the prosecution to fill up the gap and lacunae as after examination of the witnesses, proper course is to re-examine the witness under Section 138 of the Evidence Act and rather than to re- examine the witness, proseuction wants to fill up the lacunae and examine the witness without re-examination of said witness. Though without any justification learned Magistrate on its own jumpned to the conclusion that it is necessary to examine such witnesses for just decision of the case and presumed culpability of accused. Already 13 witnesses have been examined and now 3 witnesses are required to be examined. The defence is ready to expedite the trial also and even as per the statement made by prosecution before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the proceedings of Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.761/2025, prosecution was to examine maximum 16 witnesses.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined [3.3] Herein, no question of forgery of any document or legality of any document is in question though beyond the scope of allegation, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order. Further, the defence is entitled to receive complete set of all relevant or irrelevant documents prior to commencement of trial though no documents have been provided by the prosecution. Hence, he has requested to allow the present petition as allowing the prosecution to examine additional witnesses would cause serious prejudice to the defence.

[4.0] In oppugnance, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and 2 witnesses are alrady dropped. Hence, in any manner, number of witnesses to be examined, has not cross the number of 16 and prosecution is not intended to prolong the matter. Even, time line fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not over. Further, the chief examination of said two witnesses is already recorded and now is kept pending for cross-examination as it was deferred. Learned Magistrate has passed proper order and it is the duty of the prosecution to lead sufficient evidence to prove the case of prosecution against the accused. Herein, prosecution is not attempting to fill up the lacunae. So far as non-compliance of section 207 of the CrPC is concerned, at relevant point of time, no any such objection is raised by the defence and at belated stage also impermissible. Herein, challenge in the present petition is limited qua applicability of section 311 of the CrPC (section 348 of the BNSS) and as per section 242 of the CrPC, Court shall have to accept whatever evidence is produced by the prosecution in support of its case.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined [4.1] Further, the proposed witnesses are material witnesses and there is no prejudice caused to the accused as ample oppertunity to cross examine said witnesses is very much available to defence. Further, during investigation of the case and during investigation their statements were not recorded which does not mean that the prosecution has no right to examine additional witnesses. It is the discretionary power of the Court and the Court has exercised it properly. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present petition.

[5.0] Heard learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perusing the record, it appears that the allegation against the accused by the prosecution is that the petitioner - accused and other accused persons (absconding & deceased) in criminal conspiracy with each other forged an order of Mamlatdar dated 13.01.1994 in respect of the land of the complainant and thereafter executed a registered sale deed for the said parcels of the land in favor of their relatives and beneficiaries through 52 companies without paying any consideration to the complainant family. In this regard, the FIR being CR No.11192050230731 of 2023 came to be registered with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") which has culminated in Criminal Case No.706 and 2024.

[5.1] The learned Magistrate, Sanand has taken cognizance of the offence and has started recording of evidence. The prosecution has filed an application Exh.73 under Section 348 of BNSS Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:06:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined (Section 311 of the CrPC) to issue summons to additional witnesses namely (1) Mrs. Manjulaben Kanubhai Jivabhai, the wife and legal heir of the deceased complainant; (2) Advocate Shri Mukeshbhai Patel, who had carried out work related to title clearance in respect of land bearing Survey No.738 and 743 of village Chekhla; (3) Bank Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Ashram Road Branch, Ahmedabad; (4) Investigating Officer who obtained certified copies of relevant records from the Registrar of Companies, the Hon'ble High Court and other government authorities, which were placed before the learned Magistrate and (5) concerned Officer of Registrar of Companies from whom the Cds and other documentary evidence were obtained. Learned Magistrate has been pleased to partly allowed the said application vide the impugned order and issued summons to the witnesses namely (1) Shri Mukeshbhai Patel and (2) Bank Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Ashram Road Branch, Ahmedabad for examination as witnesses for the prosecution. The said additional witnesses appeared before the learned trial Court and their chief examination was recorded but cross examination of said witnesses deferred at the request of accused.

[5.2] Pursuant to the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner/accused opposed the application Exh.73 before the learned trial Court on the ground that the prosecution is trying to fill up the lacunae in their case and therefore, it would cause prejudice to the accused. The object underlying in section 348 of the BNSS (section 311 of the CrPC) is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:06:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses. Section 348 of the BNSS (section 311 of the CrPC) relates to power of the Court to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined "if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case." Section 311 of the CrPC (section 348 of the BNSS) reads as under:

"311 CrPC (S.348 BNSS). Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.

- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."

This power was conferred on the Court in the general provisions as to inquiries and trials in Chapter XXIV of the CrPC whereas Sections 231 CrPC (S.254 BNSS), 242 CrPC (S.265 BNSS), 244 CrPC (S.267 BNSS) and 254 (S.277 BNSS) of the CrPC relate to the procedure of taking evidence during the trial, conducted by a Court of Session and by the Magistrate. The Magistrate does not convict the accused he/she shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence. So, it speaks that all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution be received during the trial. It is an established principle in Law of Evidence that evidence includes both oral Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:06:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined and documentary. Therefore, in my considered opinion, as long as the trial in sessions cases, warrant cases or summons cases is at the stage of evidence for prosecution, as laid down in the above sections, the Sessions Judge or Magistrate can take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.

[5.3] In the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav (Supra), in paragraph 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the decision in the case of Natasha Singh vs. CBI reported in (2013)5 SCC 741, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the object of this Section is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. The Court examines evidence only after laid before the Court. The important aspect to be seen is whether the Court thinks it necessary in the facts and circumstances of a particular case before it. In Section 311 of CrPC (S.348 BNSS), the significant expression is "at any stage of inquiry or trial or other proceedings under this Code" whereas the section confers a very wide power on the Court on summoning witnesses, the Court can pass an order for examination or re- examination of witnesses. Thus, there is no restriction on the power of Court. Section 311 of CrPC (S.348 BNSS) cannot be curtailed at any stage.

[6.0] The petitioner / defence had opposed the examination of aforesaid 2 witnesses by submitting that, witness namely Shri Mukeshbhai Patel had issued the title clearance certificate in the year 1999 and facts are already known to the prosecution prior Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:06:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined to commencement of trial. In order to clarify the ambiguity qua issuance of title clearance certificate, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that said witness is an advocate then in that event, such professional communications are protected but section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act further provides that any such communication made in furtherance of any legal purpose is not protected from disclosure and said matter relates to witness and also proposed evidence is subject to challenge in cross- examination and defence has right to raise an objection qua admissibility and relevancy of such evidence and said fact depends on the proposed witness. Herein, the prosecution wants to lead an evidence and the Court has found it necessary for the limited purpose of eliciting facts.

[6.1] As against the said finding of the learned trial Court, the main grievance of the petitioner is that forgery of sale deed is not in question but prosecution has mainly submitted that charge framed against the petitioner is for the forgery of letter issued by Mamlatdar dated 13.01.1994 and based on the said forgery, without paying any consideration, subsequently sael deed came to be executed and hence, the fact in issue is forgery of letter issued by the Mamlatdar office but consequence of said letter is execution of sale deed without paying any consideration to the father of the complainant and said allegation is fact in issue which clearly reveals from the charge framed by the learned Magistrate at Exh.16.

[6.2] So far as another witness i.e. Bank Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Ashram Road Branch, Ahmedabad is concerned, as discussed earlier, the alleged sale deed is executed in the year Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:06:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 1996 and allegation is that without paying consideration, said document came to be executed. Hence, the prosecution wants to bring on record the banking documents to show sham financial transaction, which is purportedly linked to the execution of the sale deed, which are already produced on record and prosecution has relied on Exhs.33 and 69. Considering the aforesaid fact, learned trial Court thought it just and proper to examine the said witnesses. Merely because the statements of said two witnesses were not recorded during the investigation is not a ground to refuse the application. Even otherwise, it is the contention of the prosecution that the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation of the case had collected the material and they are material witnesses and their evidence would assist the Court to arrive at a just and proper conclusion.

[7.0] Though, such evidence either oral or documentary was not mentioned in the list of witness/documents filed with the police report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 CrPC (S.193 BNSS), copies of the statements or documents be furnished to the accused, to enable him to avail the right of cross-examination. Merely because police has not cited any witness or document is not annexed with final report, it does not prevent the prosecution or Magistrate/Court from examining any other witnesses or receiving documents if they help the Court to arrive at a just decision in the case. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Tamilmaran vs. Dy. Superintendent of Police Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:06:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined reported in 2025 INSC 576 :: AIR 2025 (SC) 2545 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:

"48. As is clear from the language of the provision itself, there is a wide discretion with the Courts under Section 311 CrPC. These powers can be exercised suo moto or on an application moved by either side. After all, the object is that the Court must not be deprived of the benefit of any valuable evidence. It is absolutely necessary that the Court must be apprised of the best evidence available. Thus, Courts have been given wide powers to decide on their own if a witness is required to be called or recalled for examination or re-examination. This power under Section 311 CrPC can be invoked at any stage of the trial, even after the closing of the evidence. Section 311 CrPC can also be read along with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, as the powers of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act are complementary to Section 311 of CrPC. As discussed above, powers under Section 311 CrPC can either be exercised on an application moved by either side to the case or suo moto by the Court. In case a person is not listed as a witness in the charge-sheet but later, the prosecution desires to bring that person as an additional prosecution witness, then the prosecution can move an application to bring this person as a prosecution witness. It is then for the Court to decide whether such a person is required as a witness or not. If the Court finds that such a person should have been examined as a prosecution witness and he/she was omitted from the list of witnesses due to some oversight, mistake or for any other reason, the Court may allow the application and such a person can be examined as a prosecution witness. Thereafter, the normal course of examination-in-chief, crossexamination, etc. would follow as per the procedure. On the other hand, when the Court calls a person as a Court witness, there 48 are some restrictions regarding the cross-examination of such witness."

Thus, non-citing a witness in the charge-sheet does not disable the prosecution or the Court from examining any other witness if it is found desirable or necessary for the purposes of the evidenciary value of said additional evidence be decided later. Hence, the contention of the petitioner - accused that the proposed evidence produced by the prosecution which is not mentioned in the list of witnesses and documents filed by the prosecution along with the police report (charge-sheet) would cause prejudice to him if allowed, is not tenable in law.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined [8.0] It is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before the Court to prove a fact or the points in issue. The exercise of power under section 311 CrPC (S.348 of the BNSS) is only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case. The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Herein, petitoner-accused failed to show or point out alleged prejudice due to examination of such additional two witnesses. The wide discretionary power is exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The learned trial Court satisfied itself that it is essential to examine such witnesses in order to arrive at a just decision of the case.

[8.1] The object of section 311 CrPC (S.348 BNSS), simultaneously imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision. Hence, once the Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary then the Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified with caution and such additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party. The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:06:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party. The power under section 311 CrPC (S.348 BNSS) must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society.

[9.0] Lastly, argument canvassed by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner as regards filling of lacunae is concerned, rather to answer in verbose it would be in profit to refer to the case of P. Chhaganlal Daga vs. M.Sanjay Shaw reported in (2003)11 SCC 486 wherein, the case was under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act") wherein, the complainant completed the evidence including his own examination, cross-examination and re-examination. During such cross-examination the accused contested the question of service of notice envisaged under Section 138 of the NI Act. The acknowledgment receipt produced by the complainant contained a signature which the accused disowned as his. After the arguments were concluded and the case was posted for judgment, at that time the complainant moved the trial Court for reception of additional material by producing a postal receipt in exercise of the powers under section 311 of CrPC (S.348 BNSS). The trial Court felt that the said material was necessary for the just decision of the case and hence allowed the same to come on record. The said order was challenged by the accused before the High Court wherein it was held by the Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:06:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined High Court that production of such postal receipt at the belated stage was only to fill up the lacunae and hence the same is impermissible in law. The Hon'ble Apex Court after discussing about what is meant by lacunae in prosecution case, powers under section 311 of the CrPC (S.348 BNSS) and section 165 of Evidence Act and by taking into consideration few earlier pronouncements upheld the order of trial Court as the same would not cause any prejudice to the rights of the accused and the accused can cross examine the complainant on the basis of the new material adduced on record. Hence, an application under section 311 of CrPC (S.348 BNSS) can be permitted even at the stage of Judgment. Hence, in light of aforesaid authorative pronouncement, argument canvassed by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is not acceptable.

[10.0] It is pertinent to note that, canons of criminal jurisprudence on which our criminal justice system functions, every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. Conviction or acquittal is not the sole prerogative of the criminal trial. Truth is the main object. The quest of truth is the mandate of law and indeed the bounden duty of the Courts. The criminal justice system will sustain only when the people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. Therefore, the Court is responsible for making sure that trials are conducted fairly and that justice is served. Judges preside over criminal trials and make sure that the accused are given their due rights. Fair trial is not a favour afforded to the accused. It is a legally enforceable right guaranteed by the State to its citizens for whom the State itself exists.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined [11.0] Ergo, this Court is of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the learned Trial Court as the impugned order is just and legal and no case is made out to interfere the same under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, present petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged.

[12.0] Learned trial Court is directed to fix a date for the cross-

examination of the additional two witnesses and on appointed date if the petitioner fails to cross-examine the witnesses, trial Court shall proceed further since the records indicate that Criminal Case No.706 of 2024 is a Supreme Court Direction matter and therefore, learned trial Court is directed to take up the matter on day to day basis and dispose of the trial as per the time line given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

[12.1] Further, the learned trial Court is directed to appreciate whatever evidence is produced / adduced on the record, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order passed below Exh.73 as well as in the present judgment made by this Court, independently on its own merits, by considering the objections raised by the defence including relevancy and admissibility of the same.

[12.2] It is needless to say that the observations made in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, Sanand and present judgment are tentative in nature. All defences and contentions to be raised at the time of arguments are kept open.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined [13.0] At this stage, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner requests to stay the present judgment so as to enable the petitioner - accused to assail the present judgment and order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said request is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor as it would delay the trial of Criminal Case No.706 of 2024.

Having heard learned Counsel for respective parties and in view of observations made hereinabove and considering the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court has given time line to conclude the trial within four months in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.761/2025 which is going to expire on 21.08.2025, no case is made out to stay the present judgment. Hence, the request is not acceded to and stands rejected.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:06:46 IST 2025