Gujarat High Court
Kamlesh Shantilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 21 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 06/08/2025
Pronounced On : 21/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 775 of 2008
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 774 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KAMLESH SHANTILAL PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NANDISH THACKAR FOR THAKKAR AND PAHWA ADVOCATES(1357)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 21/11/2025
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present Criminal Revision Application Nos.775 of 2008 and 774 of 2008 are preferred by the respective applicants - original accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment and order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No.3, Page 1 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Special Case Nos.30 of 2003 and 29 of 2003 in the respective revision applications, rejecting the discharge applications. Subsequently, the charge came to be framed against both the applicants - accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, necessary amendment in the memo of both the present revision applications and prayer clause has been made.
Facts of Criminal Revision Application No.775 of 2008:-
1. The factual matrix, leading to the filing of the present revision application, are that one F.I.R. came to be registered before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Special Division, Gandhinagar being Crime No.RC 31(A) 2000 - GNR on 15.11.2000 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the five accused Page 2 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined persons, namely, (i) Jashabhai Barad, the then Minister of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Gujarat State (ii) Vitthalbhai Shah, the then Minister of State for Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar (iii) A.M. Bhardwaj, IAS, Additional Chief Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar (iv) Vijay Sinh Parmar, IAS, the then Managing Director, Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation (GSCSC), Gandhinagar and (v) D.K. Rao, IAS, the then Director (Food, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, Private Transport Contractors.
1.1. As per the allegations made in the said complaint, the Government of Gujarat, vide its letter dated 02.12.1998, desired CBI investigation in the allegation relating to corruption in the State Civil Supplies Corporation and Civil Supplies Corporation, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, causing undue pecuniary loss to the Government of Gujarat to the tune of Rs.6.40 crores. The Government of Gujarat has given Page 3 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined its consent vide notification dated 04.01.1999. As per the allegations, Jashabhai Barad, the then Minister of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Gujarat State, Vitthalbhai Shah, the then Minister of State for Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, A.M. Bhardwaj, IAS, Additional Chief Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar and Vijay Sinh Parmar, IAS, the then Managing Director, Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation (GSCSC), Gandhinagar, while working on the said post during the year 1997-1998, in criminal conspiracy with the private transport contractors, committed the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and abused their official position inasmuch as, they unjustifiably increased the transport rates of the transport contracts for food grains i.e. wheat and rice and levy sugar, which were awarded upto 31.10.1998.
Further, they unjustifiably extended the contract period by one year i.e. upto 31.03.1999 and thereby, caused an undue financial burden on the State Government to the Page 4 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined tune of Rs.6.40 crores. Thus, F.I.R. came to be registered against the accused persons.
1.2. It is the case of the present applicant that two distinct instances of offences of the same nature had taken place, one in the Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Gujarat and the other in the Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation in respect of the transport contracts of food grains and levy sugar. Since both the contracts were separately finalized by different authorities and different departments, the Investigating Officer filed separate chargesheets and two separate cases were registered in the Court. The case of the present applicant pertains to the food-grain dealt with by the Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation and the other case was registered as Special Case No.29 of 2003, pertaining to the matter of levy sugar dealt by the Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Gujarat. 1.3. It is the case of the applicant - accused that he is the Page 5 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined transporter and not the public servant and a representation to the Government had been made merely for demanding increase in their rate of transportation. According to him, the representation was considered by the concerned authorities and officers and thereafter, approved by the then Ministers. It is the case of the applicant that though he has shown as accused, he has not been chargesheeted and there is no iota of evidence to show that the accused was party to the criminal conspiracy, as alleged. The ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are also not prima facie satisfied and the dispute is of a civil nature.
1.4. Subsequently, the investigation was carried out and investigating officer has filed the chargesheet wherein, the applicant has been shown as accused no.6. As per the allegations made in the chargesheet, the present applicant, in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy and being a party to the said conspiracy, as authorized by Shri Harish K. Panchal of Parichay Transport, Ahmedabad, signed the representation containing false Page 6 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined claims for increase of transport rates on the ground of price hike of diesel against Clause-38 of the Contract Agreement and pursued the increase by causing wrongful loss to the GSCSC and corresponding gain to himself and for others.
Facts of Criminal Revision Application No.774 of 2008:-
1. As per the allegations levelled in the chargesheet against the present applicant, the present applicant of M/s.Asha Roadways, Kalol, in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy and being a part of the said conspiracy, signed and perused the representation containing false claims for increase of transport rates on the ground of price hike of diesel against Clause-25 of the Contract Agreement and pursued the increase by causing wrongful loss to the Government of Gujarat and corresponding gain to himself and for others.
1.1. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant has not demanded any rise in price and has not put signature in the representation dated 03.09.1997 and the person, Page 7 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined who put the signature on the said representation was Mr.Mahesh Barot and, therefore, the applicant is not a party in the process of demanding rise in the contractual price on account of rise in diesel price. It is the case of the applicant that there was high rise of 28% in the price of diesel, which was made by the Central Government and there is no evidence of cheating in the demand of rise in the contractual rate. It is the case of the applicant that there is a specific clause no.5 in the contract, which was entered into between the transporter and the GSCSC Ltd.
wherein, it is mentioned that the price is fixed for a period of one running i.e. from the place where the goods is uplifted and downloaded only. It is clearly mentioned that the GSCSC Ltd. would not pay any fare for the return of vacant or empty truck and thus, it is clear that the rise in the price of diesel would cause double expenditure. 1.2. Subsequently, the investigation was carried out and investigating officer has filed the chargesheet wherein, the applicant has been shown as accused no.8. Page 8 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined 1.3. The applicants of both the present Criminal Revision Applications have preferred applications for discharge before the learned trial Court vide exh.44 being Special (CBI) Case Nos.30 and 29 of 2003, which came to be rejected by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No.3, Ahmedabad by judgment and order dated 22.12.2008.
2. Since the issue involved in both the Criminal Revision Application is identical, the same are decided by this common judgment.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Nandish Thackar for Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates for the applicants, in both the revision applications, has submitted that the order of the learned Special Judge is illegal, erroneous, against the evidence on record and against the provisions of law and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that in the chargesheet, the only allegation against the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No.775 of 2008 is that applicant - Shri Kamlesh S. Patel, in pursuance of the aforesaid Page 9 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined conspiracy and being a party to the said conspiracy, as authorized by Shri Harish K. Panchal of Parichay Transport, Ahmedabad, signed the representation containing false claims for increase of transport rates on the ground of price hike of diesel against Clause-38 of the Contract Agreement and pursued the increase by causing wrongful loss to the GSCSC Ltd. and corresponding gain to himself and for others. It is submitted that in the whole chargesheet, so far as the allegation qua the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No.774 of 2008 is concerned, it is alleged that applicant - Shri Madhusudan Govindlal Barot of M/s.Asha Roadways, Kalol, in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, being a party to the said conspiracy, signed and perused the representation containing false claims for increase of transport rates on the ground of price hike of diesel against Clause-25 of the Contract Agreement and pursued the increase by causing wrongful loss to the Government of Gujarat and corresponding gain to himself and for others.
Page 10 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined 3.1. It is submitted that after filing of the present revision applications, the charge came to be framed against both the accused persons of the respective Special Case Nos.30 of 2003 and 29 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also other accused persons. It is submitted that in the trial Court, it is the case of the prosecution that the present applicants have forged the signature of the other transporters while making the representation to the Government but, from the chargesheet papers, nothing has been disclosed that the present applicants have forged the signature of the other transporters by making the same representation. It is submitted that so far as applicant - Mr.Kamlesh S. Patel is concerned, he is not the owner or partner of 'Parichay Transport Company' and merely employed as a manager of the company. It is submitted that in both the cases, after filing of the revision applications, the learned Sessions Judge has framed the charge against all the Page 11 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined accused persons and subsequently, amendment has been made in the prayer clause of both the revision applications. It is submitted that there was high rise in the price of the diesel, which was made by the Central Government and rise was beyond the control and because of that, a representation for demand of rise in the contractual price has been made, which cannot be considered as cheating or there is no element of cheating and there is no any criminality in the entire case and, therefore, no any offence can be said to have been made out against the present applicants. It is submitted that as per the contract entered into between the transporter and GSCSC Ltd., it is mentioned therein that the price is fixed for a period of one running i.e. from the place where the goods is uplifted and downloaded only. It is clearly mentioned that the GSCSC Ltd. would not pay any fare for the return of vacant or empty truck and thus, it is clear that the rise in the price of diesel would cause double expenditure and even from the statement of one of the Directors i.e. Mr.Agrawal from the Civil Supplies Page 12 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined Department, recorded in the preliminary inquiry, they come to the conclusion that increase ought to have been allowed to the extent of 11% approximately and rise in the contractual rates of had to be increased, which was to be revived on account of rise in the price of diesel. 3.2. It is further submitted that so far as the case of the prosecution is concerned, it mainly based on the fact that both the applicants have tried to cheat the Government by making a representation and the said representation has been made before the Government and by that, they have also facilitated the government officials and the Ministers to commit the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted that so far as the government officials and the Ministers are concerned, they have preferred applications being Criminal Revision Application Nos.525 of 2016, 526 of 2016 and 527 of 2016 before this Court and in all the three revision applications, by common judgment dated 19.09.2016, this Court was pleased to allow all the revision applications and charge framed against the Page 13 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined accused persons in Special Case Nos.30 of 2003 and 29 of 2003 have been quashed and set aside and in result, they have been discharged. It is submitted that, therefore, when the then government officials and the Ministers have already been discharged from the offences and the said judgment has not been challenged by the respondent
- C.B.I. in any Court, now, no evidence has been found against the present applicants, as there is no allegation of cheating against the present applicants. So, it is submitted that the present revision applications are required to be allowed and the charges framed against the present applicants may be quashed and set aside and both the applicants may be discharged from the alleged offence.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.R.C. Kodekar for the respondent - Investigating Agency submitted that there is a sufficient evidence found against the both the applicants and that is why, the chargesheet has been filed. It is submitted that even the charge has been framed against both the accused persons. Hence, Page 14 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined considering this, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below and at this stage, the scope of interference is very limited. Hence, it is submitted that the present revision applications are required to be dismissed. Further, learned advocate Mr.Kodekar has fairly admitted the fact that the then Ministers and the government officials, against whom, the prosecution sanction has been accorded by the competent authority, they have already been discharged by this Court and the said judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Revision Application Nos.525 of 2016, 526 of 2016 and 527 of 2016 has not been challenged before any Court. Learned advocate Mr.Kodekar also fairly conceded the fact that from the chargesheet papers, it is not the allegation against both the applicants that they have forged signatures of other transporters in the said representation, which was made pertaining to the increase in the diesel price in the country.
5. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and perusing the Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined judgment of the learned Sessions Court, so far as the factual aspect of the present case is concerned, the sum and substance of the prosecution case before the trial court is to the effect that the State Government has assigned contract of transporting commodities like sugar, wheat etc. which are essential commodities and required to be provided for timely distribution throughout and within the State in time schedule. While assigning such contract for the year 1997-1998, as per the standard draft condition of the tender and work order for transportation, there was a condition in the contract signed by the successful transporters that they will not ask for hike in price on any ground including rise in the price of petrol or any other taxes or any similar ground. However, upon reading the relevant condition no.38 of the contract, it specifically confirms a restriction only upon the transporters that they would not ask for any rise or hike in contractual rate of transportation of commodities on several contingencies like increase in the price of petrol, diesel or spare parts or local or other taxes and simply Page 16 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined confirms that even if they ask for such rise then the corporation would defend such rise at their risk and cost. Such agreement was entered into between transporters (Some of them are also accused in the main case) and Gujarat State Civil Supply Corporation Limited, the Government of Gujarat undertaking. Thereby, one thing is clear that the present applicants are neither the party nor signatory to such contract and thereby, such contract does not bind them in any manner whatsoever.
6. However, when there was all of a sudden 28% increase in the price of petrol and diesel on 02.09.1997, some of the contractors have submitted their representations on 04.10.1997 for increasing the rate of their transportation charges. At the relevant time, one Vitthalbhai Shah was the Minister of State for Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs. Such Civil Supply & Consumer Affairs Ministry of the State Government was in-charge of the concerned Gujarat State Civil Supply Corporation Limited. Therefore, initially, representation was placed before him and he agreed to increase the Page 17 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined transportation charges between 18% to 28%. On 15.10.1997, he died pending inquiry and trial and therefore, this Court is now not concerned with his activities as the case stands abated against him.
7. There was one another condition regarding period of contract according to which, contract was valid only upto 21.04.1998. However, meanwhile considering the rise and increase in the price of petrol and diesel and thereby the rate for transportation of all kind of goods, the period of contract for transportation of essential commodities was also increased. Since such increase has resulted into additional cost amounting to approximately Rupees two crores and odd in all, on the basis of some information, which may seem to be political with some ulterior motive, C.B.I has started investigation and filed chargesheet against as many as 16 accused persons under different sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code, alleging that the present applicants have violated the terms of contract and financial rules and without according previous sanction from the finance Page 18 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined department, not only allowed the rise in the contractual rate of transportation but released the payment also and extended the period of contract at such higher rate and thereby, they all being public servants committed the offence under sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under sections 420, 120 (B) and 144 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. In this regard, now, the role attributed by both the present applicants is required to be considered. It appears that both the applicants are merely the transporters and they have made representations and merely by making representation for increase in the rate pursuant to the hike in the diesel price in the country, it cannot be said that present applicants have hatched criminal conspiracy along with the public servants and committed the said offence. Further, from the material produced along with the chargesheet, it appears that there is nothing on record to establish that both the applicants have gained any advantage of a nature of financial or by making decision for increase in the Page 19 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined transportation rates. Even not a single iota of evidence has been produced or even that the public servants have received any amount or got monetary benefits from the present applicants.
9. Further, it is required to be considered that so far as the public servants are concerned, they have challenged the order of framing of charge by preferring Criminal Revision Application Nos.525 of 2016, 526 of 2016 and 527 of 2016 before this Court and this Court, vide judgment dated 19.09.2026, has held as under:-
"49. It is also relevant to recollect that though there was hike in price and extension of period of contract, practically, contract of transporters was terminated from 31st May, 1998. Though charges were framed on 22.12.2008, till date these proceedings before the Special Court is stayed by the order of the High Court dated 2.7.2009 in Criminal Revision Application No.774 of 2008 and thereby, Special Court could not proceed in the trial and hence, there is no reason for the petitioner to challenge the charges till date. Hence, there is no question of delay.
50. The entire dispute is based upon the interpretation of a contract with the transporters and hence, though these are criminal proceedings, following observations based upon the law of Contract would be relevant to be recollected here which makes it clear that inadequacy of consideration needs to be taken care of by the Court. In view of such settled legal position on the Page 20 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined subject of inadequacy of consideration there must be cogent and clear evidence of mens-rea to frame charges, which is missing in the present case.
51. Inadequacy of consideration "may be a strong evidence of fraud, when the transaction is such as to be inconsistent with the sober manner of a man conducting his affairs. When you see distress on the one side and money on other and a wish on the one side to press that distress into submission to his own terms, inadequacy of his own terms, inadequacy of price goes a great way in warranting the Court to infer from this that some sort of fraud was used to draw the other party into the bargain; it may be such an ingredient of fraud as to make the Court presume more than is in actual proof; and I shall never quarrel with a Court of Equity which makes such an inference where the inadequacy is so gross, as makes it impossible that the bargain could have been fairly made" (in the case between Per Evre C.B. Griffith Vs. Spratley reported in (1887)1 Cox 383 (388,
389)). Inadequacy of consideration may become a most material circumstance when one of the parties to a transaction is from age, ignorance, distress, incapacity, weakness of mind, body or disposition, or from humble position or other such circumstances unable to protect himself (in the case between Kerr, Fraud, p.169. See Keshab Chandra Nayak Vs.Laxmidhar Nayak, AIR 1993 Ori 1(8): 1991(72) Cut LT 539: (1992)2 Ori LR 517: 1992(1) Civ LJ 292 and also section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963). Thus though inadequacy of price is not alone sufficient to authorise the vacating of a contract or the sale of a reversion, yet the inadequacy of price coupled with the inexperience and absence of any competent advice on the part of the seller are sufficient to set in motion the protective powers of the Court of equity (in the case of Tennent Vs. Tennent (1870)2 HLC; Administrator - General of Bengal Vs.Juggeshwar, 3 Cal 192; Kalimuthu Vs.Maung Tha Din, 14 Rang 392: AIR 1936 Rang 491 and in the case between Devji Shivji Vs.Karsandas Raji, AIR 1954 Pat 280). Where the inadequacy of consideration is so glaring and the circumstances surrounding the contract are so Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined suspicious as to lead the court to the view not that one of the parties has made a bad bargain merely, but that one of the parties must have been imposed upon and taken advantage of by a person who had better means of knowledge than he himself possessed, the contract may be set-aside (in the case between Kalimuthu Vs.Maung Tha Win, 14 Rang 392, AIR 1936 Rang 491). Where the consideration for a promise is unreal as where the promisor gets nothing in return for his promise except that to which he is already legally entitled to, the promise cannot be enforced (in the case between Kedari Bin Vs.Atmarambhat reported in 3, BHC AC 11 (18, 19))". Neither common law nor equity normally inquires into the adequacy of the consideration which the purchaser provides. But such an enquiry would be central to any defence solely based on a defence of change of possession, for, it is a defence which operates to discharge, wholly or in part, a defendant's duty to make restitution. There was a change of position of the parties including the creditors, pursuant to the sale and the applicant being put in possession. In that context, the adequacy of consideration paid by the applicant will be a relevant consideration. It needs to be noted that the sale in favour of the applicant was set aside by the Supreme Court mainly on the ground that the consideration paid was grossly inadequate (in the case between Allahabad Bank & Ors. Vs. Bengal Paper Mills Co.Ltd. & Ors.
reported in (2004)8 SCC 236).
52. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is quite clear and obvious that there is no evidence against the petitioners in the bunch of charge sheet produced before the court so as to frame the charge as alleged in the charge sheet and therefore, framing of charge is illegal and hence, the same needs to be quashed and set aside. Thereby in absence of any prima facie evidence against the petitioners, they are entitled to get the benefit of discharge from the alleged offences.
53. For the reasons aforesaid, I am constrained to allow the revisions. Consequently, the impugned Page 22 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined charges are set aside and the petitioners are discharged from the charges leveled against them in the charge-sheet.
54. I have scrutinized the prima facie evidence on record which categorically fails to prove the involvement of the accused in commission of crime and that there is no prima facie evidence against him for framing the charges, hence the revision applications deserves to be allowed."
10. Considering this, in view of the above facts, there is no evidence regarding allegations made against both the present applicants that they have forged any signature or have hatched any conspiracy with the public servants and also there is no iota of evidence and even from the chargesheet papers, ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are not constituted. Further, as this Court has already discharged the said public servants from the offence, in view of the above facts and circumstances, now, it is clear and obvious that there is no evidence against the present applicants in bunch of chargesheet produced before the Court.
11. Therefore, order of framing of charge and rejecting the discharge applications itself is illegal and the same Page 23 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined needs to be quashed and set aside. In absence of any prima facie evidence against the present applicants, they are entitled to get the benefit of discharge from the alleged offence.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, I am constrained to allow the revision applications. Consequently, the impugned charges are set aside and the applicants are discharged from the charges leveled against them in the charge- sheet.
13. I have scrutinized the prima facie evidence on record, which categorically fails to prove the involvement of the accused in commission of crime and that, there is no prima facie evidence against them for framing the charges, hence the revision applications deserves to be allowed.
14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, present Criminal Revision Application Nos.775 of 2008 and 774 of 2008 are hereby allowed, as prayed for. Page 24 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined Thereby, charges framed against the present applicants i.e. Kamlesh Shantilal Patel and Madhusudan Govindlal Barot in the respective cases on 19.03.2009 in Special Case Nos.30 of 2003 and 29 of 2003 are hereby quashed and set aside. Further, judgment and order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No.3, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Special Case Nos.30 of 2003 and 29 of 2003 in the respective revision applications, rejecting the discharge applications preferred by the respective applicants is quashed and set aside, which results into discharging of the applicants from the charges leveled against them in such Special Case Nos.30 of 2003 and 29 of 2003. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) Hitesh Page 25 of 25 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:18 IST 2025