Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai Ramanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 08.09.2025
Pronounced On : 26/09/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 354 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DILIPBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YASH V GUPTA(11814) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 26/09/2025
1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr.H.K. Patel waives service of Rule for the respondent - State.
2. The present Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant-original accused under Section 397 read with Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing against the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Dharampur in Special ACB Case No.1 of 2023, whereby the application preferred by the present applicant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge in ACB Case No.1 of 2023 vide Exh. 9 came to be rejected.
3. The short facts leading to the filing of the present Revision Application are that one complaint came to be filed by first informant - Ms.Pratimaben Kantilal Bareliwala on 08.05.2023 before the ACB Police Station against the present applicant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended in 2018).
4. In the nutshell, it is alleged in the complaint that she was appointed as a Teaching Assistant at Arunoday Sarvajanik Vidyalaya, Taluka: Kaprada, District: Valsad on 20.07.2017 and upon completion of 5 years of service, she Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined became entitled to be appointed as a permanent teacher and to receive full salary. The petitioner - Mr.Dilipbhai Patel herein, who was serving as In-charge Principal at the relevant time, had accepted her application for permanent recruitment and full salary about five months earlier. At that time, the petitioner allegedly told her that her performance was not satisfactory and that he would make adverse remarks in her C.R., which would prevent her from securing a permanent job. It is further alleged that he stated that without the society's resolution, the process would not be proceeded and, therefore, demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/-.
5. At that time, the complainant requested him not to do so, but the accused reiterated that if she wanted full salary, she must pay Rs.50,000/-. It is further stated in the complaint that on 01.05.2023, the petitioner called her on the phone and said that her salary had been credited and asked whether she was coming to give money or would transfer it via Google Pay. Again, on 04.05.2023, he Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined telephoned her, stating that others had already paid the same amount. When the first informant requested a reduction, the petitioner refused, stating that the society would not agree to the same. She insisted on reducing the amount to Rs.25,000/-, but the petitioner denied, claiming that the material costs were high and reiterated the demand of Rs.50,000/-, instructing her to pay. Upon unwillingness to pay the same amount, the first informant lodged a complaint with the ACB police station on 08.05.2023.
6. Pursuant to the said complaint, a trap was arranged and the present applicant was caught by the ACB officials in the presence of panch witnesses while accepting the amount. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet. The present applicant preferred an application for discharge, which came to be rejected by the Sessions Court, and therefore the present Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Vishal K. Anandjiwala, Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined appearing on behalf of the applicant, vehemently submitted that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous, unjustified and contrary to the settled principles of law and, therefore, requires to be set aside. It is further submitted that the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application vide the impugned order are contrary to law and facts and are based merely on presumptions and assumptions. 7.1. It is submitted that there was an audio conversation between the accused and the complainant, which forms part of the charge-sheet and from this conversation, it clearly emerges that the amount demanded by the applicant- accused was not towards the illegal gratification, but was demanded from all the newly recruited teachers as per the decision of the Teachers' Mandal, towards donation for the development of the school. It is submitted that amount of Rs.50,000/- was being collected from each new teachers and this aspect has not been considered by the Court below. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has also Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined failed to consider the transcription of the said conversation between the accused and the complainant. 7.2. It is further submitted that no one would demand bribe money through an online platform like Google Pay. From the charge-sheet papers, it is revealed that as per the complainant's own allegations, the C.R. of the complainant had already been filled in by the present applicant and no adverse remarks were made. The proposal had also been sent to the concerned authority for making the complainant permanent and granting her full salary. Hence, the very foundation of the complaint is doubtful. 7.3. It is further submitted that there is no material produced along with the charge-sheet to establish that the present applicant demanded or accepted illegal gratification. The transcript of conversation shows that the petitioner only referred to the practice of certain mandalis charging Rs.2 to 3 lakhs for school development, whereas their mandali had asked only for Rs.50,000/- which is also supported by Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined statements of other witnesses, who were present in the earlier meetings with newly recruited teachers, in which the complainant was also present. Thus, the amount was towards the school development and not by way of illegal gratification.
7.4. It is further submitted that even from the conversation dated 04.05.2023, it appears that the applicant was trying to obtain personal and educational details of the complainant for uploading on the DEO portal, but due to some personal difficulty, she could not attend his call. This conversation was placed before the trap was led on 08.05.2023.
7.5. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court, in para 5 of the impugned order, has failed to properly assess the nature of the conversation and has selectively considered portions of it, unjustly rejecting the discharge application. It is submitted that the alleged preliminary demand of bribe has not been proved and even the elements Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined of acceptance and recovery do not establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 7.6. It is also submitted that at the time of trap proceedings, the petitioner had taken a khaki cover and made an endorsement with the signature of the person, who gave the money, which itself shows that the money was for a specific purpose and not for illegal gratification. From the panchnama also, it appears that the applicant had called his clerk to bring a khaki cover, but since he was busy with admission work, the applicant himself procured it. Considering this, prima facie, it appears that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was not towards illegal gratification, but towards the donation, as supported by statements of other witnesses. Hence, there is no sufficient material even to proceed against the applicant.
7.7. It is, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to settled legal principles and requires to be set aside and that the present applicant Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined deserves to be discharged.
7.8. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported in 2023 Cri.L.J. 1856, wherein it was held that proof of demand of gratification by a public servant is sine qua non for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that, payment is also required to be proved. It is submitted that in the present case, no previous demand has been established by way of material produced with the charge-sheet and even at the time of the trap, no demand was made.
7.9. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava, reported in AIR 2017 SC 3698 wherein, it is held that even at the stage of deciding a discharge application, the Court has to consider the sufficiency of material placed on record, including the transcript of phone conversations. It is Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined submitted that no material, either direct or circumstantial, has been produced along with the charge-sheet to establish that the present applicant demanded, accepted, or obtained illegal gratification. The genesis of the offence is itself doubtful. Hence, the present application is required to be allowed.
8. Learned A.P.P. Mr.H.K. Patel has vehemently opposed the present Criminal Revision Application and submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court are just and proper and do not require any interference. Further, it is submitted that, at that stage, the Court has not to hold any trial and it is not permissible for the Court to appreciate the evidence. It is submitted that at that stage, the Court has only to consider the material produced, where there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the present applicant. Further, he has submitted that from the telephonic conversation also, it transpired that the present applicant had forcefully demanded money from the complainant. From the witness statements also, it Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined transpires that the present applicant has never sought to give any receipt to any of the persons, who had given money as alleged donation for development of the school. Further, the president of the Mandli is the father of the present applicant and the present applicant was found in the presence of the panchas, accepting the amount and even during the panchanama, the presence of the head of the founder has also been found as a witness against the present applicant-accused. Considering this, it is submitted that there is no illegality committed by the learned Sessions Court and, therefore, the present Revision Application deserves to be rejected. Further, the learned A.P.P. has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap reported in (2021) LawSuit (SC) 271, decided on 13.04.2021 and P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, reported in (2010) LawSuit (SC) 35, decided on 27.01.2010.
8.1. It is submitted that in view of the above, the present Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merits and the Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined same is required to be rejected.
9. After hearing the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court, at this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., reported in (2012) LawSuit (SC) 609, particularly paragraph nos. 8 and 9.
"[8] Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying it- self as to the legality and regularity of any pro- ceedings 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 appropri- ate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful con- sideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various Judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdic- tion can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no com-Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined pliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evi- dence is ignored or judicial discretion is exer- cised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not ex- haustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
[9] Another well-accepted norm is that the revi- sional jurisdiction of the higher court is avery lim- ited 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 ex- ercise 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 accor- dance with law in a given case, it may be reluc- tant to interfere in exercise of its revisional juris- diction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceed- ings under the Cr.P.C."
10. Thus, from the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the scope of interference and the Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extremely limited. Even, the powers under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised by the Court very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance with the provisions of law, or the findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on no evidence, or material evidence has been ignored, or judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely while deciding the application for discharge. The Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to be extremely circumspect while interfering with the order passed by the learned trial Court.
11. Considering this, in the present case, it is the case of the applicant-original accused before this Court that no demand has been made by the present applicant from the complainant towards any illegal gratification. It is stated that the amount was demanded from the newly recruited Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined teachers as per the decision taken by the President of the Mandal of the High School and the In-charge Principal, i.e., the present applicant. It is the further case that in the said meeting, held on 21.04.2023, the newly recruited teachers as well as other teachers, including the complainant, were present. The purpose of the meeting was to carry out the repairing work of the shed of the school and since the Mandal did not have sufficient balance and the old teachers had already contributed, it was decided to take donations from the newly recruited teachers. Accordingly, five teachers were to contribute Rs.50,000/- each to the In-charge Principal, i.e., the present applicant.
12. In this regard, it is found that the present applicant made a telephonic call to the complainant, demanding money, stating that the same was required for bringing materials as the school was closed for vacation. The said conversation between the complainant and the accused took place on 04.05.2023 and pursuant thereto, the complainant approached the ACP Police officials. Subsequently, two Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined panchas were arranged and a trap was led, wherein the present applicant-accused was caught while accepting the amount. Further, considering the main argument advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant that no demand was made by the present applicant towards any illegal gratification and that the amount was only demanded as a donation for the construction of the shed in the school building, reliance is placed on the transcript produced along with the charge-sheet. In this regard, it is required to consider that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, reported in 2010 LawSuit (SC) 35, has laid down the guidelines while deciding an application for discharge. It has been discussed therein that, while deciding an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has to examine the record to see whether the allegations, prima facie, disclose the offence.
13. So, considering this, it is now required to be examined the allegations levelled against the present applicant. The Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined allegation is that the present applicant has demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and further, from the statement of other witnesses, it also emerges that it was decided to give donation voluntarily. It also emerges that no receipt was issued by the present applicant regarding the amount received, which was accepted by the present applicant and after conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge-sheet against the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned advocate for the applicant upon the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the accused is concerned, in this regard, it is required to consider the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, reported in 2021 LawSuit (SC) 271, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined "9.2 In the recent decision of this Court in the case of M.R. Hiremath (supra), one of us (Justice D.Y. Chandrachud) speaking for the Bench has observed and held in paragraph 25 as under:
25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an ap-
plication for discharge under the provisions of Sec- tion 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the ex- ercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled princi- ple of law that at the stage of considering an appli- cation for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, 2014 11 SCC 709, adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held: (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29).
29. 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, Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined 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 differ- ently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the ma- terials 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 com- mitted the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.
[11] Having considered the reasoning given by the High Court and the grounds which are weighed with the High Court while discharging the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has ex- ceeded in its jurisdiction in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and has acted beyond the scope of Sec- tion 227/239 Cr.P.C. While discharging the ac- cused, the High Court has gone into the merits of the case and has considered whether on the basis of the material on record, the accused is likely to be convicted or not. For the aforesaid, the High Court has considered in detall the transcript of the conver- sation between the complainant and the accused which exercise at this stage to consider the dis- charge application and/or framing of the charge is not permissible at all. As rightly observed and held Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined by the learned Special Judge at the stage of fram- ing of the charge, it has to be seen whether or not a prima facie case is made out and the defence of the accused is not to be considered. After considering the material on record including the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the ac- cused, the learned Special Judge having found that there is a prima facie case of the alleged offence un- der Section 7 of the PC Act, framed the charge against the accused for the said offence. The High Court materially erred in negating the exercise of considering the transcript in detail and in consider- ing whether on the basis of the material on record the accused is likely to be convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act or not. As observed hereinabove, the High Court was required to con- sider whether a prima facie case has been made out or not and whether the accused is required to be further tried or not. At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge applica- tion, the mini trial is not permissible. At this stage, it is to be noted that even as per Section 7 of the PC Act, even an attempt constitutes an offence. There- fore, the High Court has erred and/or exceeded in virtually holding a mini trial at the stage of dis- charge application."
Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
14. So, considering this, at the time of deciding an application for discharge, the Court is not required to con- sider the transcript produced by the investigating agency in detail and at this stage, the Court is not permitted to hold a mini trial or to weigh the evidence in detail. The Court has only to consider whether there is sufficient material pro- duced against the accused to proceed further or not. It is not the duty of the Court, at this stage, to examine whether the material produced along with the charge-sheet would ul- timately result in conviction or acquittal. What is required to be considered is whether a prima facie case or grave suspi- cion has been made out from the material produced along with the charge-sheet.
15. As discussed above, the present applicant has been caught red-handed and even the presence of the phenolph- thalein powder was found on his hands and panchnama has been duly prepared. Considering this, it is necessary to examine the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined that whether the demand of amount pertains to illegal grati- fication or not is a matter of trial, which cannot be decided at this stage. The defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the discharge ap- plication.
16. I am in total agreement with the observations made by the learned Trial Court and I do not find that any illegality committed in the impugned order. Looking to the overall material produced along with the charge-sheet, there is sufficient material to proceed against the present applicant. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court can- not be said to be perverse or contrary to the settled princi- ples of law. Hence, the present Revision Application is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) Hitesh Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:47 IST 2025