Gujarat High Court
Nadirkhan @ Babakhan Nawabkhan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/575/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 08/10/2025
Pronounced On : 16/10/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 575 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
NADIRKHAN @ BABAKHAN NAWABKHAN PATHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RUTURAJ NANAVATI(5624) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
CAV JUDGMENT
By way of filing the captioned revision application under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), the petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 27/07/2009 passed below Exhibit-6 in Sessions Case No.138 of 2008 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad seeking to discharge from the array of the charges came to be rejected.
2. The complaint being CR No.I-530 of 2002 came to be lodged before the Naroda Police Station by one Mr.Jigneshbhai Vyas on Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:51:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/575/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined 03/12/2002 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 120-B, 114 and 112 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1)(b)(a) of the Arms Act, wherein the present petitioner - accused came to be arrested on 17/10/2005 and after completion of the investigation, the supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioner - accused showing him as a main conspirator which culminated into registration of Sessions Case No.138 of 2008.
3. The petitioner - accused moved an application below Exhibit-6 seeking to discharge, which came to be rejected after hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and hence the present revision application.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Nanavaty would submit that whole charge-sheet filed by the prosecution would not even remotely suggest as to how the present petitioner-accused is involved in the offence in question and he was shown as a principal conspirator and there was no evidence or sufficient ground for prosecuting the petitioner. He would submit that there is no iota of evidence which would even prima facie suggest that the petitioner is involved in the offence in question. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that except the statement of co-accused there is no other evidence against the petitioner which cannot have the evidentiary value in the eye of law and therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. He would submit that since the statement of the co-accused on the basis of which the petitioner - accused came to be implicated as an accused in the offence in question which does not have any evidentiary Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:51:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/575/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined value at the time of trial, then it would be a futile exercise to drag the petitioner to undergo the rigorous of trial.
5. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the following case law and submit to allow this revision application and to quash and set aside the impugned order.
1. Karan Talwar vs. The State of Tamil Nadu [2024 INSC 1012].
2. SCR.A No.16316 of 2024 dated 21/08/2025 rendered in the case of Nishitbhai s/o Devprakash Gopichand Gupta vs. State of Gujarat.
3. CR.RA No.726 of 2008 with CR.RA No.744 of 2008 rendered on 20/01/2009 in the case of Nandlal Kalabhai Pandav vs. State of Gujarat.
4. Bijal Jagabhai Bambhva, Bharvad vs. State of Gujarat [2015 LawSuit (Guj) 1349.
6. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the respondent - State would submit that the learned Sessions Court had passed a well reasoned order and having found sufficient material to proceed with the trial, being main conspirator in the commission of offence, rejected the discharge application filed by the petitioner and therefore, this Court would not entertain the present application.
7. He would submit that contention of the petitioner that on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the petitioner came to be implicated in the crime in question cannot be decided at this stage as the appreciation of evidence would be done only after the full fledged trial and therefore, Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:51:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/575/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined in the submission of learned APP, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the discharge application. He would further submit that since the charge of Section 120-B of the IPC is alleged against the petitioner - accused and to prove the aspect of hatching a conspiracy, also the evidence is required to be led and therefore, also the impugned order does not require any interference.
8. By making the above submissions, he would submit to dismiss the present revision application.
9. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
10. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that while dealing with the application filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which pertains to discharge, the scope to exercise such jurisdiction is very limited; wherein the Court has only to confine its reasoning in consonance with the material placed for consideration as to find out whether the case for trial has been made or not in such proceedings and the Court is not expected to hold a mini trial by evaluating the entire set of evidence. At the time of framing of the charge, the Court has only to consider the probative value of the evidence on record and is not expected to go into the merits of the case rather roots of the case while evaluating the same.
11. The bone contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner - accused is that petitioner came to be implicated in the offence in question on the basis of the statement of the co-accused and there is no other Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:51:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/575/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined material in the charge-sheet to show the involvement of the petitioner in the offence in question and therefore, petitioner may be discharged. It is pertinent to note here that petitioner - accused is charged with the offence of Section 120-B of the IPC which pertains to hatching a conspiracy, where firstly there must at least be an accusation of meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act, which is not illegal in itself, by illegal means, which otherwise can be proved by leading a substantial evidence. The essential ingredients to prove the offence of conspiracy, which being a distinct offence, all conspirators are liable for the acts of each other of the crime or crimes which have been committed as a result of conspiracy. If Section 120-B, IPC is seen, it appears that the sine qua non for an offence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an offence and it consists of an agreement between two or more persons to commit the criminal offence, irrespective of the further consideration whether or not the offence is actually committed as the very fact of conspiracy constitutes the offence. Here, in the present case, the charges of conspiracy is specifically alleged against the petitioner- accused by showing him as a principal conspirator and in absence of any material to the contrary pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the application seeking to discharge cannot be entertained.
12. Furthermore, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decision the obligation to discharge the accused arises when the Court concerned considers the charge against accused to be "groundless" and no detailed evaluation of materials or meticulous consideration of possible defences need be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken at this stage and Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:51:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/575/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined only consideration at the stage of filing application seeking discharge is as to whether the allegation/charge is "groundless" or not and exercise at this stage is to be confined to considering police report and documents to decide whether allegations against accused can be said to be groundless. In the present case, considering the police report in the form of charge- sheet, it pirma facie reveals that no such material is found to be "groundless" to discharge the petitioner from the alleged offence. Nothing sort of any material seems to have been shown by the petitioner
- accused from material to show "groundless" charge alleged against him. To the contrary, the petitioner - accused is shown as main conspirator of the offence in question and therefore, also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference.
13. Now, insofar as the decision upon which the reliance is placed upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner in case of Karan Talwar (supra) and decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Nishitbhai s/o Devprakash Gopichand Gupta (supra) are concerned, where on the basis of the statement of the co-accused involvement is found and accused has been discharged. There is no dispute on the said proposition; but here in the present case, the offence charged against the petitioner - accused includes Section 120-B of the IPC and he is shown as main conspirator in the charge-sheet for hatching a conspiracy for the commission of crime. Thus, the said ratio would not come to the rescue of the petitioner - accused.
14. Insofar as the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Nandlal Kalabhai Pandav (supra) is concerned, of Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:51:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/575/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined course, it rests on the aspect to the extent of hatching a conspiracy; but if the facts of the case in the aforesaid decision equating with the facts of the present case is examined, it stands on different footing; where in that the accused have been charged for the offence under Section 120-B of the IPC and question was sought to be raised as to when and under what circumstances the conspiracy came to be hatched can be stated only by the complainant as the complaint has been lodged on behalf of the State Government after preliminary inquiry. Thus, the said decision would also not come to the rescue of the petitioner - accused.
15. Another decision in case of Bijal Jagabhai Bambhva, Bharvad (supra) is concerned, where the full-fledged trial has been held and evidence was recorded and after appreciating the said evidence, the Court concerned has reached to the conclusion. Here in the present case, the trial is yet to commence and evidence is yet to be recorded and therefore the said decision would also not come to the rescue of the present petitioner - accused.
16. Now, reverting back to the facts on hand, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has categorically dealt with the aspect of seeking discharge on the basis of the statement of co-accused. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded that on careful scrutiny of material available on record, it appears that the charges levelled against the accused relates to his alleged involvement as principal conspirator in the entire incident and the evidence at this juncture emerging on the face of the record clearly consists of the statement of co-accused. It further transpires as concluded by the learned Sessions Judge while appreciating the material Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:51:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/575/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined that no-doubt, while considering the material against an accused, the court has to satisfy itself that there is material, which prima facie establishes or suggests the involvement of an accused to an extent as to would necessitate a trial against such an accused. However, in light of the material comprises only of statements of co-accused which, otherwise cannot be held to be of any evidentiary value at the time of the trial and the said submissions came to be discarded while relying on the suspect of strong suspicion that even the strong suspicion against the accused or if the matter remains into region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof at the initial stage. Thus, while referring to the aforesaid proposition, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly discarded the circumstances and the claim seeking to discharge from the array of the accused. As the case of the petitioner who otherwise has been charged with being principal conspirator, it is to establish the factum of conspiracy is not easy task which otherwise is required to be recognized and established by following and appreciating the judiciously as the charge of conspiracy is very rarely established by direct evidence. Thus, while finding to the aforesaid issue what is required to be considered at this juncture whether the conspiracy is going to be established upon trial or not and whether the material available therein resulted into conviction of the accused is not a material aspect which the Court at this juncture is required to be considered.
17. Insofar as the scope to exercise the revisional power is concerned, it cannot be exercised in a routine or casual manner as the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence by holding a "mini trial" as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Through Deputy Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:51:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/575/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Superintendent Of Police (supra) where the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the decision in case of Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 631 has held in paragraph No.75 and 76 as under:
"75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 631, this Court held as under:-
"3.....The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged."
76. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge- sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure."
18. The learned Court below has succinctly dealt with all the aspect as agitated by the petitioner-accused while refusing the discharge application considering the factual as well as the legal position and this Court is in complete agreement with the said findings arrived at by the learned Court below denying the discharge application.
Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:51:39 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/575/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
19. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons recorded by the learned Court below, this Court does not find any substance in the present revision application. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Interim-relief shall stand vacated forthwith.
(R. T. VACHHANI, J) sompura Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:51:39 IST 2025