Gujarat High Court
Suprimkumar Jitendrabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 05/08/2025
Pronounced On : 25/08/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 165 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SUPRIMKUMAR JITENDRABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHETAN K PANDYA(1973) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. CHINTAN DAVE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for
following reliefs:
A) To issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Certiorari or any
other writ order or direction, directing to quash and set aside an order
dated 10/12/2020 passed by Hon'ble Court of Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad at Annexure-O in connection
with File No. CCST/STO/ENF/ESU-0/Suprim Patel/2020-21/B.1
registered with Office of Chief Commissioner State Tax. Gujarat
State, Ahmedabad and release the petitioner;
B) Pending admission and final disposal of this Petition, to stay
implementation and operation of an order dated 10/12/2020 passed by
Hon'ble Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Ahmedabad at Annexure-O in connection with File No.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
CCST/STO/ENF/FSU-0/Suprim Patel/2020-21/B.1 registered with
Office of Chief Commissioner, State Tax, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad
and release the petitioner;
C) Pending admission and final disposal of this Petition to release the
petitioner in connection with File No.
CCST/STO/ENF/FSU-0/Suprim Patel/2020-21/B.1 registered with
Office of Chief Commissioner. State Tax, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad;
D) To dispense with the filing of the affidavit as the petitioner is in
judicial custody;
E) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and
proper;
F) To provide for the costs of this petition.
1.1 Glance at the facts limited to deciding the petition are as
under :
1.2 The petitioner is a proprietor of Sun Transport Corporation
having GSTN: 24DDGPP7810B1ZT, had his business premises at
T-18. Supathya Arcade, Highway Road, Unjha, District Mehsana.
The petitioner submits that the petitioner does not owe any
transport vehicle but is arranging a transport vehicle on
commission basis.
1.3 On 04/12/2020, the petitioner received a phone call from a
GST officer at afternoon calling, the petitioner to present at his
business premises. After the lunch the petitioner remained present
at his business premises where the petitioner was served a
summons by the Respondent No.3 asking him to remain present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
at 4 PM.
1.4 According to the petitioner he was taken from his office
premises to the GST office to which the petitioner shown his
willingness. The petitioner stated that he was being interrogated
till late night upto 02:30 AM of 05/12/2020 and then was
compelled to stay in the office premises at Unjha.
1.5 The petitioner stated that at the evening hours of
05/12/2020, the petitionier was taken to Ahmedabad, GST Office
from Unjha GST Office in a Innova Car hired by the respondents.
After reaching Ahmedabad, the petitioner was taken to Rajya Kar
Bhawan, Ashram Road. Ahmedabad where the respondent No 4
had served summons dated 05/12/2020 to the petitioner. The
petitioner states that the petitioner was again interrogated till late
night upto 03:00 am of 06/12/2020 and then was compelled to stay
in the office premises at Rajya Kar Bhawan, Ashram Road
Ahmedabad.
1.6 In the meantime, the respondent No.3 had conducted search
on 04/12/2020 at petitioner's business premises and an Order of
Seizure in FORM GST INS-02 dated 05/12/2020 was passed under
Rule 139(2) of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. Even
the petitioner's residence was also searched on 05/12/2020 and an
Order of Seizure in FORM GST INS-02 was passed on 05/12/2020
under Rule 139(2) of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Rules,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
2017.
1.7 The petitioner stated that the petitioner was interrogated
throughout the day of 06/12/2020 at Rajya Kar Bhawan, Ashram
Road, Ahmedabad, without there being any summons issued to
the petitioner. However, the petitioner was taken to Green Cross
Laboratory by the respondents for Covid-19 test. Since the
petitioner was not released by the respondents, the petitioner's
wife addressed an e-mail making complaint to the Commissioner
of Commercial Tax, Ahmedabad in the evening hours wherein the
petitioner's wife specifically complained that the petitioner has
illegally detained by the respondents and has not been released.
1.8 According to the petitioner on 07/12/2020, Mr. CM. Trivedi,
the Additional Commissioner of State Tax, Enforcement, Gujarat
State. Ahmedabad had issued an authorization authorizing
respondent No.2 Mr. M.G. Bav for arrest of the petitioner
1.9 The petitioner was then arrested by the respondent No.2 for
the alleged offence under Section 131(1)(a) of the Gujarat Goods
and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Service Tax Act,
2017 alleging that the petitioner is operating 16 firms mentioned in
the arrest memo. The petitioner stated that the petitioner was also
served with the grounds of arrest memo.
1.10 The petitioner stated that after the petitioner was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
arrested the respondent No.2 had issued Summons dated
07/12/2020 to appear before him at 12.30 PM.
1.11 According to him on 07/12/2020, the petitioner was
produced before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court at Ahmedabad wherein respondents have
admitted that the petitioner was kept under their custody from
4.12.2020 to 7.12.2020.
1.12 The petitioner stated that since the petitioner was
produced beyond 24 hours of detention/arrest, an application was
given on behalf of the petitioner to the learned of Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad to release the petitioner as
the petitioner's arrest and custody has become otiose and to take
appropriate actions against GST officials.
1.13 The petitioner stated that since the petitioner was subjected
to mental and physical torture by the respondents, the petitioner
complained to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Ahmedabad at the time of production. The
petitioner's statement was recorded on oath and the petitioner was
sent for medical treatment. The petitioner has specifically stated
that the petitioner was detained since 04/12/2020 and was not
allowed to go anywhere and was compelled to stay in GST office
throughout till the time of arrest on 07/12/2020.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
1.14 Respondent No.2 again admitted in bold letters that
the petitioner was kept in their confinement without there being
arrest warrant and was shown arrested on 07/12/2020 in
connection with File No. CCST/STO/ENF/FSU-0/Suprim
Patel/2020-21/B.1 registered with Office of Chief Commissioner,
State Tax, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad.
1.15 The petitioner relied upon Article 22 of the
Constitution of India. Sections 46 & 57 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 and Section 69(2) of the Central Goods and Service
Tax Act. 2017 in support of the submissions and the judgements of
the various courts and in spite of that the Court of Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the application preferred
by the petitioner by non-application of mind by an order dated
10/12/2020.
1.16 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the action of
respondents of illegally detaining the petitioner from 04/12/2020
to 07/12/2020 and showing arrest on 07/12/2020 contrary to the
mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, Section 57 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 69(2) of the Central
Goods and Service Tax Act. 2017 and an Order dated 10/12/2020
passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Ahmedabad at Annexure-O, the petitioner preferred
this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
with Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
for releasing the petitioner as the petitioner's arrest and custody
has become otiose, on various grounds.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is already released on
regular bail by the Coordinate Bench, however, the petitioner has
confined his case to the extent of his personal liberty since has
been jeopardised by the GST officer which is not less than the
illegal detention.
3. Elaborating his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Chetan
Pandya appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
was summoned on 4.12.2020 as he had received the call from GST
officer followed by copy of summons to remain present before the
GST Office, in an inquiry proceeding. He submitted that the
petitioner was interrogated extensively upto 2:30 am of 5.12.2020
and thereafter he was taken to the GST office, Ahmedabad without
his consent, in an Innova car hired by GST office. He further
submitted that he was served with another summons on 5.12.2020
and again he was interrogated till late night of 3:00 am of 6.12.2020
at GST Office, Ahmedabad. He further submitted that in the
meanwhile, on 4.12.2020 the petitioner's business premises and
residence were searched under the order of seizure by the
competent Officer under Rule 139(2) of the Gujarat Goods and
Service Tax Rules, 2017( for short the "GGST Rule").
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
4. In addition to the above, he submitted that on 6.12.2020, the
petitioner was taken to the Green Cross Laboratory at Ahmedabad
for covid-19 test. Since the petitioner was illegally detained from
4.12.2020, the wife of the petitioner wrote an e-mail to the
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Ahmedabad about illegal
detention of the petitioner and later on the petitioner was arrested
on 7.12.2020 in authorisaton under Section 69 of the Central Goods
and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short "CGST") for the offence
punishable under Section 131(1)(a) of the CGST Act.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya submitted that
coercive actions were taken against the petitioner, though under
Section 70 of the CGST Act, the GST officer is authorised to call
upon a person with documents in a inquiry process, he cannot be
detained for a longer period or stay for the entire day or directed
to be repeatedly attend without any reason otherwise, which
would amount to constructive detention and violation of Article
21 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that since
the petitioner was taken into custody on 4.12.2020 and since his
custody and detention continue upto 7.12.2020, in view of Section
69(2) of the CGST Act read with Section 46 and 57 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, in the background of Article 22 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner's arrest can be treated from
4.12.2020 and he was kept in custody beyond 24 hours, rather was
produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
beyond 24 hours which is against the Constitutional Mandate and
Guaranteed under Article 22 and, entails not only the release but
also the action against the GST officer for breach of fundamental
right of the petitioner.
5.1 Various judgments quoted in the petition have been pressed
into service by learned advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya in support of
his submissions. Lastly, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner submitted that at the time of production, the petitioner
had filed an application (Annexure L) before the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad to
release him on bail and to take action against the GST officer for
illegal detention for more than 24 hours. He submitted that the
learned Trial Court without understanding the facts of the case,
dismissed the application on the ground that prolonged
investigation under Section 69 of the CGST Act is not
impermissible. Thus, learned advocate Mr.Chetan Pandya
submitted that the order of the learned Trial Court is grossly
erroneous and required to be interfered with.
5.2 In the premise of aforesaid arguments, learned advocate Mr.
Chetan Pandya submitted to take necessary action against the GST
officer for breaching the fundamental right of the petitioner and to
treat the custody of the petitioner from 4.12.2020 to 7.12.2020 as
illegal detention.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
6. The petition has been vehemently objected by learned APP
Mr. Chintan Dave mainly on the ground that Annexure A and
Annexure C, the two documents indicate that the office of the
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax has issued summons under
Section 70(1) of the CGST Act and GGST Act, 2017.
6.1 Learned APP submitted that the petitioner is bound to
appear in pursuance of the summons issued by the office of the
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax once by Surat and once by
Ahmedabad. He would submit that the petitioner had given
consent to come to the office of State Tax-GST, Unjha. Learned
APP referred to Annexure B, and submitted that since the
petitioner has consented on his own volition to remain present
before the GST office, he cannot contend that he was forcibly kept
in detention.
6.2 Learned APP would further submitted that the petitioner has
dispairingly failed to show that the summons under Section 70 of
the CGST Act and GGST Act are arbitrarily used and were
accompanied by fear of arrest. In the circumstances, he would
further submit that the authorisation as required under Section 69
of the CGST Act and GGST Act, for arresting the petitioner was
issued by the office of the Chief Commissioner of State Tax, after
recording the reason to believe that the petitioner has committed
offence under CGST Act and GGST Act, more particularly under
Section 131(1)(a). He would further submit that Annexure H
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
indicates arrest memorandum and Annexure I indicates ground of
arrest and all of them were submitted to learned Additional Chief
Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate at the time of production of the
accused. He would further submit that the accused was arrested
on 7.12.2020 and on the very same day, he was produced before
the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and
therefore, the contention that the accused was produced before the
concerned Court beyond 24 hours of his arrest is deceptive and
fallacious submission.
6.3 As far as the allegations that the petitioner has been illegally
detained from 4.12.2020 to 6.12.2020, learned APP submitted that
it was pandemic period which was on its surge and at that time it
was difficult to allow the person to go outside. Goverment
discretion had restricted physical movement. He further submitted
that by issuing summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act and
GGST Act, the petitioner was called by the Enforcement Division,
Surat on 4.12.2020, and on 5.12.2020. The summons was issued by
the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax,
Ahmedabad and the petitioner was ordered to appear in person
with the documents containing information to give the statement
in respect of the investigation of various fictitious entries made to
evade the tax liability.
6.4 Learned APP further submitted that the petitioner was
taken to Green Cross Laboratory for pathological check up on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
6.12.2020 covid test was also undertaken. This indicates that the
petitioner was not detained unauthorisedly. Learned APP
therefore, submitted that the present petition is nothing but used
to pressurize the GST officer. He further submitted that the
petitioner is already enlarged on regular bail by the Coordinate
Bench and in the circumstances the present petition has become
infructous and deserves to be dismissed. Upon above submission
learned APP submitted to dismiss the petition.
7. I have heard learned advocates for both the sides at length
and considered the record, as well as have gone through the order
of the Coordinate Bench passed in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 1724 of 2021 on dated 3.5.2021, by which the petitioner was
released on regular bail. The observations and finding of the
Coordinate Bench while releasing the petitioner on regular bail
read as under :
"6. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant has operated
16 fictitious firms and a tax liability to the tune of Rs.9,60,47,253/
had been evaded by misusing the registration numbers of various
firms. The investigation culminated in complaint Case No.11282 of
2021 which was filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ahmedabad on 04.02.2021. A close perusal of the
complaint prima facie reveals that there are 16 firms, which were part
of scrutiny by the investigating agency. As per the case of the
prosecution, the applicant is involved in misusing the registration
numbers of these 16 firms and the total tax evasion by generating
eway bill without revealing the true identity of the real purchaser or
real seller is stated to be Rs.96,047253/. The court has also examined
the role and names connected with such firms and prima facie it
appears that the applicant is involved in four firms viz: Meet
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
Traders(Rs.39,39,864/ tax evaded), Ravi Enterprise (Rs.40,14,306/
tax evaded), V.S.Trading (Rs.38,06,024/ tax evaded) and Vikas
Enterprise (Rs.38,99,983/ tax evaded). Except these four firms
nothing is pointed to this Court with regard to the complicity of the
applicant in generating eway bills of other firms. The total tax evasion
of these four firms comes to Rs.1,60,00,000/ approx. The applicant is
also ready and willing to deposit some of the amount as per the
instructions received by learned advocate Mr.Pandya from the
applicant."
8. The aforementioned order tells that the applicant had shown
ready and willingness to deposit the amount, pursuant to which
order was passed by the Coordinate Bench directing the petitioner
to deposit an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs in two installments firstly Rs.
10 lakhs to be deposited within 10 days from the receipts of the
writ and Rs. 30 lakhs within a period of 12 weeks. The tax evasion
of four firms have been prima facie recorded by the Coordinate
Bench which comes to Rs. 1,60,00,000/- approximately. In the
background of above aspects, if we look at the prayer claimed by
the petitioner principally asking that the petitioner be released
from the custody of the GST officers, what appears that though
petitioner asked to quash and set aside the order dated 10.12.2020
passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Ahmedabad (Annexure O). In this petition, the petitioner did not
seek any relief to initiate any proceedings against the GST officer.
The relief which the petitioner showed 'release the petitioner'.
The petitioner is already released on bail by the Coordinate Bench
and in that circumstances, the relief claimed by the petitioner dies
on its own during the pendency of the petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
9. Section 69 of the GGST and CGST Act provides the power to
arrest and Section 70 of the Act defines power to summon person
to give evidence and produce document. The power under Section
70 is akin to the power of Civil Court provided under the Code of
Civil Procedure. The inquiry referred to in Section 70 is deemed to
be a judicial proceeding within Section 193 and Section 228 of the
Indian Penal Code, as per Section 70 (2) of the CGST and GGST
Act. It is an admitted fact that on 4th and 5 th December 2020, the
petitioner was summoned by the competent officer under Section
70 of the CGST and the GGST Act. The learned Trial Court has
observed in its order that the inquiry and the questioning of the
petitioner runs a long way around 232 questions. It is not worthy
that the time period in which the petitioner was summoned was a
peak covid period. According to the papers on record the
petitioner was taken for covid test to Green Cross Laboratotory on
6.12.2020. Judicial notice can be taken that, in covid time period,
Government had issued directives and reduced physical
movement. Admittedly the petitioner was taken for covid-test on
6.12.2020. On 4.12.2020 and 5.12.2020 the petitioner was
summoned under Section 70 of the CGST and GGST Act. On
6.12.2020, he was taken for covid test and on 7.12.2020 the
petitioner was arrested following procedure laid down under
Section 70 of CGST and GGST Act. Thus, contention that petitioner
was detained illegally is unsustainable. Annexure B on record
reflects that the petitioner volunteered to remain present before
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
the GST office on 4.12.2020. The contention that petitioner was
illegally detained in the custody are found missing in a petition
filed for regular bail.
10. Various contentions are raised by the petitioner in its ground
and multiple judgments are pressed into service, but what could
be noticed is that those grounds for illegal detention essentially
were made by the petitioner to get him released from the custody.
They were aimed to set rules from confinement. Notably the
petition was filed prior to filing of bail application, later on
petitioner has been released on regular bail, as per above order.
11. Another aspect noticeable is that the order passed by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate called to scrutiny in this petition, can
also be challenged by way of revision under Section 397 read with
section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before the learned
Sessions Court. It was specifically confronted to learned advocate
Mr. Chetan Pandya that why no revision has been filed to which
he did not given proper reply. This Court in the case of Nayan
Kumar Kanubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat 2025, (3) GLR 1639,
held that in presence of alternative efficacious remedy, invocation
of Section 482 is permissible only in compelling circumstances.
Relevant para thereof reads as under :
"19. By catena of decisions, it has been held that powers under
Section 482 of the Code is to be exercised sparingly and only when it is
necessary to ensure justice or to prevent misuse of judicial process. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
person seeking action under Section 482 of the Code avoiding to avail
the remedy of revision has to satisfy that there was exceptional
circumstances permitting him to invoke Section 482 and it was
imperative despite availability of alternative remedy. In the present
case, learned advocate Mr.Mangukiya for the petitioner specifically
confronted with that why petitioner has not availed remedy of revision
to challenge the impugned order? It was answered that since two
different remedies are available with the petitioner, the petitioner has
opted to seek relief of quashment of the impugned order invoking
Section 482 of the Code. Only on availability of two remedies,
invocation of Section 482 is permitted. In presence of alternative
efficacious remedy, invocation of Section 482 is permissible in
compelling circumstances. Learned advocate Mr.Mangukiya failed to
point out any compelling circumstances to subvert alternative
efficacious remedy and to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the Code.
12. Yet, in another judgment in the case of Rameschandram
Laherchand Shah & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal
Revision Applciation 619/2024 dated 06/05/2024, this Court held
as under :
11. Recently, this Court in Manishaben Vrajlal Thakkar vs
State Of Gujarat & Ors., in CR.RA No.10 of 2024, after
referring the judgment of Bombay High Court as well as Kerala
High Court has observed in paragraph 15 to 17 as under:
"15. What could be further noticed that impugned order is passed by
learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by such impugned order, revision can
be filed in Sessions Court, however, the complainant - the first
informant has directly approached this Court bypassing the Sessions
Court to challenge the impugned order. Of course, Section 397 of the
Code provides for the concurrent jurisdiction to the Sessions Court as
well as the High Court to examine correctness, legality or propriety of
any finding. In case of Shri Padmanabh Keshav Kamat vs Shri Anup
R. Kantak & Others reported in 1998(5)BOMCR 546 and in case of
Tejram S/O. Mahadeorao Gaikwad vs Smt. Sunanda W/O Tejram it
has been held that when two forums are available to correct alleged
wrong then it will be appropriate to approach lower forum. Recently,
the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Natwar Lal vs. State
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
[2008 (3) RajLW 2522] after referring to the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Pranab Kumar Mitra vs State of West Bengal AIR
1959 SC 144 held in
paragraph 14 thus:
"The scope and ambit of Section 397 of the code is not only confined
to the correctness or legality of the order but also to its propriety.Both
the Court of Sessions and Magistrate are inferior to the High Court
and courts of Judicial Magistrate are inferior to the Court of Sessions
Judge When an order is passed by the Sessions Judge the only remedy
left with the aggrieved party is to approach the High Court under
5.397 (1) of the Code to question correctness, legality or propriety but
when the same is passed by a magistrate, though power lies to both the
sessions and the High Court but as a matter or prudence and
propriety,it will be appropriate to first approach the lower forum
except in rare and special circumstances. Such special circumstances
may be where the Sessions Judge has directly or indirectly
participated in the enquiry or investigation or trial or through his any
action or order interest of justice demands that High Court alone
should interfere in the order of the magistrate."
16. Recently, the Kerala High Court in CR.RA No.839 of 2023 in case
of Balamuraly G. vs. Vinod T R vide order dated 26/10/2023, in similar
such facts has held in paragraph 6 thus:
"6. True, section 397 of the Code confers concurrent
jurisdiction to the High Court as well as the Sessions
Court to call for and examine the records of any
proceedings before an inferior criminal court situated
within its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying
itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order rendered in such proceedings.
When the power of revision is concurrent, it may not be
illegal for a person to approach the High Court instead
of the Sessions Court with a prayer for revision of an
order. A Full Bench of this Court considered in Sivan
Pillai v.Rajamohan and others [1978 KLT 223] the
question whether a revision, where it is maintainable in
view of the provisions of Section 397(1) of the Code, in
the High Court as well as Sessions Court, should be
pinned down to the Sessions Court. The view taken by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/165/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
the majority is that the salutary principle that where
concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on two fora, the
lower forum should be exhausted first has to be given a
go by in view of the specific provision conferring
jurisdiction by Section 397(1) of the Code both on the
High Court and the Sessions Courts. That is the law.
But propriety demands the aggrieved, as far as possible,
to first invoke the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. It is
apposite to approach the Sessions Court first for another
reason also. That, the parties might be located in the
Sessions Division concerned. In a revision petition any
order, which causes prejudice to the accused, can be
passed, in view of Section 401(2) of the Code, only after
giving notice to him. Where the accused resides in a far
away Sessions Division he has to be drawn to the High
Court as though the matter can be heard and decided by
the Sessions Court concerned without causing such an
inconvenience. Therefore, it is just and appropriate for a
party to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions
first, where the revision is possible by both the High
Court and the Sessions Court, albeit there is no bar for
the High Court to entertain the revision filed without
exhaustion of the lower forum."
13. In the aforesaid circumstances, the relief claimed in the
petition since has died during the pendency of the petition this
petition has become infructous. Moreover, availability of
alternative efficacious remedy of revision, having not been
exhausted by petitioner also renders this petition pointless. In all,
accordingly, petition is disposed of. Notice/Rule is discharged.
14. In the aforesaid premise, it is made clear that this Court
though has offshootly touched the issue of illegal detention, the
finding thereof are limited in decision as this petition.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MARY VADAKKAN
