Gujarat High Court

Jalpaben Nathubhai Goriya vs State Of Gujarat on 30 June, 2025

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                        R/CR.RA/246/2023                                         CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                                                               Reserved On   : 20/06/2025
                                                                               Pronounced On : 30/06/2025

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
                                    SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 246 of 2023


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

                      ==========================================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                         Yes            No

                      ==========================================================
                                                 JALPABEN NATHUBHAI GORIYA
                                                            Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR. TEJAS BAROT SR. ADV. WITH MR ANUP S BHAVSAR(10208) for the
                      Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR DEEP C HIRANI(12799) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                       CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA


                                                           CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 30/06/2025

1. The present revision application preferred by the

present applicant under Section 397 read with Section

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against

the order passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

Gandhinagar in Summary Case (ACB) No.410 of 2021,

rejecting the summary report submitted by the

Investigating Officer by order dated 21.02.2023.

2. The factual aspects of the case are as under:-

2.1. The complaint came to be given by one

Mr.Dashrathbhai Bhulabhai Panchal before the

Gandhinagar, ACB police station on 31.08.2018 and it

was alleged in the complaint that being an agricultural

worker and also being in progress work, the complainant

is also looking after the land of Patel Pramukhbhai

Natavarbhai, which is situated in Village: Kolavada since

last 2 year and Pramukhbhai Patel is residing at Bhuj and

complainant is looking after other works like sale deed of

the land and also executing routes on behalf of the

Pramukhbhai Patel. It is further alleged that before 2

months ago, Pramukhbhai Patel wanted to buy 22 vighas

of agricultural land situated in Village: Udan, Taluka:

Dahegam, Dist.: Gandhinagar bearing new Survey No.358

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

and Old Survey No.328 and for that purpose, the

complainant has contacted the original owner of the land

- Mr. Baldevji Jesangji Thakor and the complainant has

also visited the land with Pramukhbhai Patel and

Pramukhbhai Patel agreed to purchase the said land at

Rs.22,57,500/- and at that time, Pramukhbhai Patel gave

Rs.1,000/- as a token amount to the land owner and

decided to execute offline general power-of-attorney

before the Sub-registrar Office. Further, it is alleged that

for the purpose of general power-of-attorney, the

complainant had visited Sub-registrar Office at

Mamlatdar Office, Dahegam on 06.08.2018 and at that

time, the complainant met one Mr.Rajendrasinh

Babulalsinh Chauhan @ Rajbha, resident of Palundra

Village, who was working for advisor for the sale deed in

the Registrar Office and he stated that he will scrutiny

the documents and pass on the same to Registrar -

Jalpaben i.e. the present applicant. Further, it is alleged

that said Rajbha has passed on the document to Registrar

- Jalpaben and thereafter, Rajbha has informed the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

complainant that Pramukhbhai Patel wants to purchase is

mortgaged to Union Bank, Halisa against the land of

Rs.22,00,000/- and new Survey No.358 but, due to some

technical fault in the computer, revenue entry is shown in

the name of Shivuji Laluji vide revenue entry no.1065,

which is a wrong entry and for that, the complainant has

to approach the Mamlatdar Office for correction of the

error and for that, original owner - Baldevji Jesangji

Thakor has given one application on 31.01.2018 for

correction of the error in the revenue record before the

Mamlatdar and along with the application, the application

for offline registration of general power-of-attorney was

also given and it is further alleged that Rajbha has

informed that for the offline registration of general

power-of-attorney, Rs.3,00,000/- was to be given to

Registrar - Jalpaben and Rs.25000/- is to be given to

Rajbha and that is why, Rajbha has refused to execute the

registration of the offline general power-of-attorney and

Rajbha told Pramukhbhai Patel that he has to give

Rs.3,00,000/- and told to call on mobile on the very next

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

day and on the next day, when they called Rajbha on the

mobile, at that time, Rajbha told that he met Sub-

Registrar - Jalpaben and lastly, he agreed for

Rs.2,50,000/-. It is also stated that the offline general

power-of-attorney will be registered and he also brought

Rs.2,50,000/- and on the next day, at Sub-registrar Office,

Dahegam, the complainant has told the said fact to

Pramukhbhai Patel and Pramukhbhai Patel was then

agreed to give Rs.2,50,000/- but the complainant -

Pramukhbhai Patel is not willing to give this amount as a

bribe amount. Then, he has given written complaint

before the Gandhinagar, ACB Police Station on

31.08.2018.

2.2. After the complaint has been given by the

complainant, the ACB Officer has led the trap on

01.09.2018 at Mamlatdar Office, Dahegam and at the

time of trap, the complainant, panchas and other ACB

trap squad have entered into the building and

subsequently, the complainant has brought one bag from

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

the car and gave the amount to Rajbha and subsequently,

the complainant has given signal then, the ACB team

came and caught hold of Rajbha and when asked by the

ACB Officer to Rajbha regarding the trap money, he has

stated that he has given the amount to one

Mr.Laxmanbhai Kalusinh Zala from his black coloured

purse, they have taken out this amount and the trap was

successful and subsequently, Rajbha was arrested and

the offence has been registered vide C.R. No.15 of 2018

before the ACB Police Station, Gandhinagar against

Rajbha and Jalpaben Nathubhai Goriya for the offence

punishable under Sections 7, 8 and 13(1) of the

Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

2.3. The investigating officer has carried out

investigation but, no sufficient evidence has been found

against accused no.2 - Jalpaben to file the chargesheet

and a summary was filed by the investigating officer

against accused no.1 - Rajbha before the Special Court,

which was rejected by Special Court on 17.07.2021 and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

also directed the investigating officer for further

investigation on the basis of the order. Further

investigation was carried out and thereafter, the

investigating officer has recorded the statements of the

other persons also, who were acquainted with the facts of

the alleged offence and after completion of further

investigation, again, submitted 'A' summary report

against accused - Jalpaben before the learned Special

Judge and the learned Special Judge has rejected the

closure report / 'A' summary and also directed the

investigating officer to proceed further and to take

sanction of the competent authority for obtaining

sanction for prosecution against accused no.2 - Jalpaben

and after the sanction having been obtained, the

cognizance will be taken. The said order was passed on

21.02.2023 by the Special Judge, ACB, Gandhinagar.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the

present revision application has been preferred.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Tejas M. Barot

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

appearing with learned advocate Mr. Anup S. Bhavsar for

the applicant submitted that the present applicant was on

leave from 06.08.2018 to 18.08.2018. It is further

submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned

Court is bad, illegal, against the settled principles of law,

against the evidence on record, erroneous and without

any basis. However, it is submitted that there is no iota of

direct or indirect evidence against the present applicant -

accused and the learned Special Court has gone beyond

its jurisdiction in ordering and directing the investigating

officer to get sanction for prosecution from the competent

authority against the present applicant, which is also

contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

3.1. It is submitted that the learned Special Judge in the

order has recorded that during the further investigation,

there was whatsapp chat between third person namely -

Vijaybhai and accused no.2- Jalpaben and conduct of

person i.e. Laxmanbhai, who is allegedly confident of

accused no.2 - Jalpaben, reveals the fact that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

complainant has approached accused no.2 - Jalpaben for

getting his false offline general power-of-attorney

registered and the accused no.2 - Jalpaben has allegedly

asked for paying illegal gratification of Rs.2,50,000/- to

her confident person - Laxmanbhai and for getting the

said power-of-attorney registered, during the trap,

accused no.2 - Jalpaben has accepted the amount through

accused no.1. It is submitted that the said finding

recorded by the learned Special Judge is against the

investigation. From the investigation papers and the

summary reports, it is revealed that present applicant -

Jalpaben has never demanded any money from the

complainant or said Pramukhbhai Patel and the said fact

has also been confirmed by the original complainant and

Pramukhbhai Patel, which clearly states that they have

never met applicant - Jalpaben, neither they had any

telephonic conversation with Jalpaben nor accused no.1 -

Rajbha took them to meet with accused no.2 - Jalpaben.

Further, it is submitted that the vice samples of the

accused no.1 and accused no.2 were sent to the Director

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

of Forensic, Gandhinagar for LVA and for the analysis,

question is put by the DFSL Officer and as per the report,

the answer given by the present applicant was found to

be correct but, only one or two questions were put and

answer has been given by the applicant. The report stated

that it might create suspicion. It is submitted that merely

on that basis, the learned Special Judge has rejected the

summary report.

3.2. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that

the present revision application is required to be allowed.

The learned Senior Counsel, in support of his arguments,

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of M.C. Abraham Vs. State of Maharashtra

reported in (2003) 2 SCC 649 and the judgment of this

Court in the case of Arjunsinh Dahyaji Vanzara Vs. State

of Gujarat passed passed in Special Criminal Application

No.6151 of 2019.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Ms.Jyoti Bhatt has

vehemently opposed the present revision application and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

submitted that in the further investigation, as per the

report of the DFS of LV and offline analysis, specific

question was put to present applicant - Jalpaben that

whether you have met Dasharathbhai? and how you have

mobile number of Dasharathbhai then, it is stated that

she never met Dasharathbhai and the said answer was

found to be correct but, she was not having mobile

number and she has never talked with him. It is

submitted that thus, the investigation is suspicious.

Further, the question was put that whether you were in

contact with Rajendrasinhji on mobile, yes or no? at that

time, the applicant has answered 'yes for some work'.

This answer was found to be suspicious so, when two to

four questions have been put, the answer given by the

present applicant found to be suspicious. Further, there

was whatsapp chat with the accused no.1 and the answer

given was found suspicious so, whenever the question has

been put regarding accused no.1 - Rajendrasinh, the

answer given by the present applicant is found suspicious

and as per the report, so far as the answer given by

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

applicant - Jalpaben regarding the mobile number of

Dasharathbhai and regarding talk with the Rajendrabhai

on mobile is concerned, the same was found to be

suspicious.

4.1. It is submitted that in the further investigation,

statements of one Mr.Vijaykumar Solanki and

Laxmanbhai were recorded and from that, the learned

Special Judge has come to the conclusion and recorded

the finding that the material on record and the evidence

collected during both investigations, make it plausible as

accused no.2 - Jalpaben being public servant, admits to

obtain undue advantage in the form of Rs.2,50,000/- for

performing the official duty as Government servant and

hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned

Special Judge. The order passed by the learned Special

Judge is just and proper and does not warrant any

interference. Hence, the present revision application is to

be dismissed.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

4.2. In support of the arguments and relying upon the

judgment of this Court in the case of Hiteshbhai

Dahyabhai Kansagra Vs. State of Gujarat reported in

2024 (0) GUJ HC 17485, learned advocate Mr.Deep

Hirani for the respondent no.2 - original complainant

submitted that they have already filed their affidavit and

in the affidavit, it is stated that the summary report

submitted by the investigating officer is required to be

allowed.

5. After hearing the rival submissions of the learned

advocates for the respective parties and perusing the

case laws on which, the learned advocates for the

respective parties placed reliance, the following 2 points

come before this Court for consideration.

(i) Whether the applicant proves that the learned Special

Judge, A.C.B. Gandhinagar in Summary Case (ACB)

No.410 of 2021, rejecting 'A' summary report, is ex-facie

illegal and against the material produced before the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

Court?

(ii) Weather the learned Special Judge, A.C.B.,

Gandhinagar can direct the investigating officer to

proceed to take sanction from the competent authority for

obtaining sanction of prosecution against the present

applicant?

6. The facts of the present case are already been

narrated above. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution

has been started by giving complaint by one

Mr.Dashrathbhai Bhulabhai Panchal on 31.08.2018

before Gandhinagar A.C.B. As per the complaint,

Pramukhbhai Patel has purchased one land and for that

land, they have to register one offline general power-of-

attorney and subsequently, the complainant met accused

no.1 - Rajendrasinh Babusingh Chauhan @ Rajbha at Sub-

the complainant that for the purpose of registration of

offline general power-of-attorney, the present applicant

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

i.e. Sub-Registrar - Jalpaben is demanding Rs.3 lacs and

Rajbha also told the complainant that he will take

Rs.25000/- and said Rajbha called Pramukhbhai on

30.08.2018 and during the meeting, it was come to the

notice that one entry no.1065 has been wrongly entered

into the revenue record and in spite of the fact that the

offline general power-of-attorney will be registered, for

that, they have to give Rs.3 lacs to Jalpaben i.e. the

present applicant and Rs.25000/- to Rajbha i.e. original

accused no.1 and subsequently, they have agreed that the

amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was to be given to the present

applicant and Pramukhbhai also agreed for Rs.2,50,000/-

but, they were not willing to give this amount as bribe

and the complaint came to be filed.

7. Further, after giving the complaint, the trap was laid

by the A.C.B. officials and the accused no.1 was found

red-handed, accepting the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and

subsequently, accused no.1 - Rajbha has given the said

amount to one of his relatives, Mr.Lakshmansingh and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

the said amount was recovered from said Lakshmansinh.

Further, after the investigation has been carried out, the

investigating officer has filed chargesheet against

accused no.1 - Rajbha.

8. After that, the investigation has been carried out by

the investigating agency and the investigating officer has

filed 'A' summary report on 13.05.2021 being Summary

No.102 of 2021 qua the present applicant before the

Special Court, Gandhinagar and the Special Court,

Gandhinagar, while passing the order at exh.1, has

rejected the class 'A' summary and directed the

investigating officer to proceed further for interrogation

and/or investigation.

9. By order dated 17.07.2021, the 'A' summary report

was rejected only on the ground that it was observed by

the Court that from the record, it transpires that the

investigation has not been done in its true spirit and as

per the summary report, Jalpaben was on leave on

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

06.08.2018 and accused no.1 - Rajendrasingh Chauhan

stated that the accused no.2 - Jalpaben has asked for

illegal gratification on 06.08.2018 and these facts are not

corroborated, with the facts of the complainant and no

evidence has been found regarding the demand of illegal

gratification on 06.08.2018. But, the learned Special

Judge has observed that in the investigation, some

whatsapp chatting have been found between present

applicant - Jalpaben and one Mr.Mayur Bhavsar, the trap

was led on 01.09.2018, summary was filed on 13.05.2021

and accused - Jalpaben has denied for polygraphic test

and also brain fingerprinting test because, the finding of

the test might go against her and, therefore, it creates

doubt. It was also directed to investigate regarding the

whatsapp chat between Mayur Bhavsar and one

Mr.Vijaybhai.

10. Thereafter, the order has been passed by the

learned Special Judge, further investigation was carried

out and again, the investigating officer has filed 'A'

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

summary report on 07.10.2021 and the same was

rejected by the learned Special Judge on 21.02.2023 and

the learned Judge also directed the investigating officer

to proceed to take sanction from the competent authority

to prosecute against the accused no.2 - Jalpaben by order

dated 21.02.2023 and the said order is under challenge.

11. From the case of the prosecution, it is crystal clear

that when the complainant met accused no.1 - Rajbha, he

told him that accused no.2 - Jalpaben i.e. the present

applicant, has demanded the money. In this regard, the

material is produced before the Court. Further, it is an

admitted position that the amount has been accepted by

accused no.1 - Rajbha and subsequently, during the trap,

the said amount was given to one Mr.Lakshmansinh. It is

also an admitted position that the trap money was never

accepted by the present applicant.

12. Now, the material produced along with the 'A'

summary report is required to be considered. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

statements of the witnesses have been recorded and the

for report of the Director of Forensic Science (DFS

Gandhinagar), more particularly, for L.V.A offline

analysis, the pen drive and CDs. have been sent and

subsequently, Rajbha and Jalpaben Goriya have been

called for and the F.S.L. officials have put a question to

both of them and given the opinion. From the report

dated 10.06.2019, the opinion of the F.S.L., Gandhinagar

was that the voice of the officer and the accused no.1 was

not clear and, therefore, no test of offline L.V.A. can be

conducted regarding - Rajendrasing Babusinh Chauhan.

But, so far as present applicant - Jalpaben Nathubhai

Goriya is concerned, the opinion of the F.S.L. officials was

that said Jalpaben is stating truth regarding the fact that

she has not accepted any amount from the Dashrathbhai

and she has never made any conversation with

Rajendrasinh regarding the document and for that, no

any talk regarding money has been taken place. It is a

clear finding of the F.S.L. officials but, as to whether

Jalpaben has the mobile number of Dashrathbhai and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

whether she and Rajendrasinh are talking on a mobile

phone and regarding the whatsapp chatting on

20.08.2018 as per the L.V.A. analysis, the reply found to

be suspicious.

13. Thereafter, as per the further investigation ordered

by the Court, again, D.F.S., Gandhinagar has conducted

L.V.A. offline analysis and as per their findings, the

amount of Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. the illegal gratification,

accepted from complainant - Dashrathbhai, regarding

that fact, investigation with regard to Rajendrasinh

Chauhan, Lakshmanbhai Zala and Kiranbhai Zala was

conducted and Rajendrasinh Chauhan has accepted the

amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and the said amount was to be

given to Jalpaben and except Jalpaben, no other person

has any share in the same. This fact is not found to be

correct and true and also, a message has been sent by

Rajendrasinh on whatsapp to Jalpaben by stating 'Maru

Setting Rakhvu', but in this regard also, he was not

telling the truth, this is what, the analysis took place.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

14. Further, as per the order of the learned Special

Court, further investigation has been carried out and

investigating officer has recorded the statements of

Mayurbhai Bhavsar and one Mr.Vijaybhai Chauhan. From

the statement of Mayur Bhavsar recorded with regard to

the whatsapp chatting with Jalpaben, nothing truthful has

been found. The whatsapp chat was pertaining to general

talks of some other matters and not pertaining to the

present case. The statement of one Mr.Vijaykumar

Solanki was also recorded and from the said statement,

nothing has been found by the investigating agency,

which can be said to be a sufficient material to rope the

present applicant in the said case.

15. More particularly, the statement of - Pramukhbhai

was also recorded by the investigating agency and from

the said statement, it also appears that neither the

complaint nor Pramukhbhai Patel, whose, offline general

power-of-attorney was to be registered before the office

of sub-registrar, have met present applicant - Jalpaben

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

nor they have any talk with the present applicant on

telephone or personally and accused no.1 - Rajendrasinh

also never talked with Jalpaben regarding demand of

illegal gratification in their presence. Therefore, from the

material, it clearly emerges that accused no.1 -

Rajendrasinh @ Rajbha has demanded money from the

complainant. It also emerges from the material produced

before the concerned Court that the present applicant

has never demanded anything from the complainant and

on the contrary, from the report of the Director of

Forensic Science, Gandhinagar, it emerges that accused

no.1 - Rajendrasinh @ Rajbha was telling a lie that the

present applicant was demanding Rs.2,50,000/- from the

complainant and Pramukhbhai Patel.

16. It is also pertinent to note that to attract Section

7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act,

2018, the demand is a sine qua non and from the material

produced, it has been clearly established that the present

applicant has never demanded any money. Even from the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

evidence, it transpires that the present applicant has

never accepted the money or no amount has been

recovered from the present applicant.

17. In this regard, it is now required to consider the

findings given by the learned Special Court, rejecting the

'A' summary report mainly on the ground that because in

some of the answers, it was found to be suspicious and

only on this ground, the learned Special Judge has come

to the conclusion that there was a suspicion that the

present applicant is involved in the offence. Further, the

findings recorded by the Court is required to be

considered with regard to whatsapp chat between one

Mr.Vijaybhai and Jalpaben and the conduct of person

Lakshmanbhai, who is confident of the accused no.2 for

getting offline general power-of-attorney registered, who

has allegedly asked for paying illegal gratification of

Rs.2,50,00/- for getting said offline general power-of-

attorney registered. But, looking to the material

produced, on the contrary, the finding recorded by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

Court has no support from the material produced by the

investigating agency because, Vijaybhai Chauhan and

Vijaybhai Solanki are two different persons, Vijaybhai

Chauhan and Lakshmanbhai, who are the relatives of

accused no.1 and Vijaybhai Solanki is some other person,

who is connected to one Mr.Mayur Bhavsar, who was

having whatsapp chatting with Jalpaben. The material

produced before the Court below, nowhere suggests that

the present applicant had demanded any money from the

complainant or Pramukhbhai Patel. Even the statement of

Pramukhbhai Patel also makes it crystal clear that he

never met Jalpaben, never had any talk with Jalpaben and

Rajendrasinh i.e accused no.1 has never talked with the

present applicant regarding demand of money in his

presence. Further, Pramukhbhai Patel has never met

Jalpaben in the office or outside also. Therefore, the

findings given by the learned Judge are not supported by

any material.

18. As discussed above, there is no iota of evidence that

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

the present applicant has demanded any money from the

complainant or his employer Pramukhbhai and it is also

coming on record that accused no.1 - Rajendrasinh @

Rajbha has demanded money from the complainant and

Pramukhbhai by giving name of Jalpaben, but Jalpaben

has never asked said Rajendrasinh regarding such type of

amount for registration of offline general power-of-

attorney. Therefore, the findings recorded by learned

Special Judge are not supported by any material and the

same warrant interference as no evidence is coming out

to connect the present applicant with the said offence.

19. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned Special

Judge, Gandhinagar, rejecting 'A' summary report

submitted by the investigating officer, is perverse, against

the settled principles of law, without any material and the

same is required to be interfered with.

20. Further, the learned Special Judge, while rejecting

the 'A' summary report, has directed the investigating

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

agency to proceed to take sanction from the competent

authority for prosecution against present applicant -

Jalpaben. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel Mr.Tejas

Barot has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of M.C. Abraham (supra) wherein,

the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 17, has held as under:-

"17.The principle, therefore, is well settled that it is for the investigating agency to submit a report to the Magistrate after full and complete investigation. The investigating agency may submit a report finding the allegations substantiated. It is also open to the investigating agency to submit a report finding no material to support the allegations made in the first information report. It is open to the Magistrate concerned to accept the report or to order further enquiry. But what is clear is that the Magistrate cannot direct the investigating agency to submit a report that is in accord with his views. Even in a case where a report is submitted by the investigating agency finding that no case is made out for prosecution, it is open to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

Magistrate to dis-agree with the report and to take cognizance, but what he cannot do is to direct the investigating agency to submit a report to the effect that the allegations have been supported by the material collected during the course of investigation."

21. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Tejas Barot has also

placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case

of Arjunsinh Dahyaji Vanzara passed in Special Criminal

Application No.6151 of 2019 (supra). In the said

judgment, this Court in paragraph 15, has held as under:-

"15. The position thus emerge is that no order even can be passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without valid sanction, nor can any direction be given to the Investigating Officer to obtain sanction after a report is filed under Section 169 Cr.P.C. However, in a case the Magistrate as the Special Court under the P.C. Act does not agree with the report of the police under Section 169 Cr.P.C. or closure report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., can issue notice to the complainant to be heard or can ask to file fresh complaint, or on his protest petition, to consider proceeding against the accused as per Section 200 of Cr.P.C. which is

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/246/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

a post-cognizance stage, directing the complainant to obtain sanction for prosecution R/SCR.A/6151/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: