Laxmanbhai Ramjibhai Sagathiya vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 1795 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Laxmanbhai Ramjibhai Sagathiya vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 2025

                                                                                                                       NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.RA/1211/2025                                         ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

                                                                                                                        undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
                                    SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1211 of 2025

                       ==========================================================
                                                 LAXMANBHAI RAMJIBHAI SAGATHIYA
                                                             Versus
                                                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       NISHITH P ACHARYA(9308) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR. H.K. PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

                                                              Date : 04/08/2025

                                                               ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. The present revision application has been preferred by the present applicant under Section 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") directed against the order passed by the learned Special A.C.B. Judge, Devbhumi Dwarka at Khambhalia in Speical (A.C.B.) case No.1/2017 rejecting the application preferred by the present applicant original - accused under Section 348 of the BNSS (old Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code) dated 11.07.2025.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishith P. Acharya for the applicant. It is submitted that after the arguments of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1211/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

prosecution and the defense side is over, the learned trial Court has Suo moto passed an order below Exh.-1 and directed the prosecution to produce the document pertain to on, when the complainant has contacted the toll free number as those document has not been produced by the prosecution and whether any record has been maintained by the office at Ahmedabad regarding anybody contacted on the toll free number and directed to produce the said evidence and the entries made in the register by 27.06.2025 and subsequently also it is observed that prosecution and defense side can make submission regarding document. After this document has been produced pursuant to order passed by the learned trial Court, the prosecution has produced the documents and it was exhibited by the Court and subsequently the present applicant original - accused moved an application vide Exhibit - 105 under Section 348 of the BNSS to call the Mr. Padheria, Joint Director, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad to examine as a Court witness and also to cross-examine the said witness and also asked the Court to call the operator of the Anti Corruption Bureau Office, Ahmedabad with recording and other documents pertain to them and also prayed before the Court to recall the complainant to cross-examine regarding this aspect. The said application came to be rejected by the concerned learned trial Court. It is submitted that the order passed by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1211/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

learned trial Court is illegal against the settle principle of law, it is not sustainable in law. After it is submitted that the learned Special Judge while Suo moto passed an order below Exhibit - 1 call for the documents, subsequently it was observed that opportunity is being given to the prosecution and the defense side to make any submission on that aspect. Court has not given any opportunity to the present accused. Further it is submitted that the learned trial Court has accepted those two documents also and it is submitted that the present applicant who is an accused have a right of far trial, hence the present application has been preferred before the learned trial Court below Exhibit 105 under Section 348 of the BNSS is required to be allowed and submitted that the present revision application is to be allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court is quashed and set aside. Further in support of his argument learned advocate for the applicant has relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Natashasinh Vs. C.B.I. reported in 2013 Supreme (SC467) and more particularly relying upon the paragraph Nos.14, 15 and 18 and it is submitted that the present revision application is required to be allowed.

3. On the other hand learned A.P.P. Mr. H.K. Patel has vehemently opposed the said revision application and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1211/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

submitted that the order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and does not require any interference. Further learned Court has considered the fact that the documents produced by the concerned Assistant Director of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad and as per the documents it was clearly stated that on 28.04.2014 one phone came on this number and entry was made into register and the extract of the register has been produced along with the letter and the recording cannot be made available with the authority in future, it is also not available. Further, learned A.P.P. draw the attention of this Court that while passing an order deciding the application Exhibit - 105. The learned trial Court has observed that after inquiry, as per the Anti Corruption Bureau Police Inspector, who is present at the time of hearing of this application and he stated that the call recording of this toll free number is only been preserved for one month, after it automatically deleted, hence the recording of the conversation took place on 28.08.2014 is not available. Hence, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application below Exhibit -

4. After rival submission made by the learned advocate for the respective parties. After I have also perused the authorities on which the learned advocate for the applicant relying upon

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1211/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

the impugned order in the present case in hand is concerned. The learned trial Court Suo moto passed an order below Exhibit - 1 call for the documents from the concerned authorities, more particularly when the complainant has contacted the Anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad and if any entry is made pertain to that conversion took place, it is required to be produced by 27.06.2025. The said order came to be passed on 20.06.2025, pursuant to the passing of this order two documents has been produced by the Assistant Director of the Anti Corruption Bureau dated 26.03.2025 and it was stated that the recording of conversation took place on 28.08.2014 is not available with them and along with this they have produced the extract of the call register maintained by their office and as per the extract of this register, it is found that the complainant Sagar Mukeshbhai has stated that Office of City Survey Seva Sadan, Bhanvad employees are demanding money and they given a number of Anand Patel officer of the Rajkot.

5. In this regard, it is required to consider Section 348 of the B.N.S.S. (Old Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.) looking to the plain reading of the said Section in two paragraphs first is discretion of Court and second is mandate if the Court is come to the conclusion that the discretion is required to be

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1211/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

exercised, there is mandate for the Court to issue summons to the witnesses. Further, the power can be exercised by the Court to find out the truth and it is require for the just decision of the case then power is to be exercised. Looking to the documents produced by the person there is nothing incriminating has been found against the present applicant - accused and it is clearly stated that the recording of the conversation took place on toll free number on 28.08.2014 is not available and it has also been stated in the order that official of the Anti Corruption Bureau specifically stated that the recording of the conversation be only store for the period of one month thereafter it is automatically deleted.

6. Further, as per the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Natashasinh (supra) in the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court held that to determine the truth and render just decision after discovering all relevant facts the power under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be exercised and looking to this documents produced by the concerned Anti Corruption Bureau officials, as per the direction by the learned Court it cannot be found that the said document has either fill lacuna part of the prosecution or it will be against the present applicant, who is an accused facing the trial so the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Natashasinh in the present

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1211/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

facts of the case is not helpful to the present applicant. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court is concerned, I do not find any illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court and I do not find judgment passed by the learned trial Court is perverse against the settle principle of law, I do not fine any merit in the present revision application. The present revision application, is hereby, dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

(L. S. PIRZADA, J) HRT