Gujarat High Court
Kamlesh Shantilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 21 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 06/08/2025
Pronounced On : 21/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 775 of 2008
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 774 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KAMLESH SHANTILAL PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NANDISH THACKAR FOR THAKKAR AND PAHWA ADVOCATES(1357)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 21/11/2025
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present Criminal Revision Application Nos.775
of 2008 and 774 of 2008 are preferred by the respective
applicants - original accused under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
challenging the judgment and order dated 22.12.2008
passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No.3,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Special Case Nos.30 of 2003
and 29 of 2003 in the respective revision applications,
rejecting the discharge applications. Subsequently, the
charge came to be framed against both the applicants -
accused persons for the offence punishable under Section
420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, necessary amendment in
the memo of both the present revision applications and
prayer clause has been made.
Facts of Criminal Revision Application No.775 of
2008:-
1. The factual matrix, leading to the filing of the
present revision application, are that one F.I.R. came to
be registered before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I.
Special Division, Gandhinagar being Crime No.RC 31(A)
2000 - GNR on 15.11.2000 for the offence punishable
under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act against the five accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
persons, namely, (i) Jashabhai Barad, the then Minister of
Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department,
Gujarat State (ii) Vitthalbhai Shah, the then Minister of
State for Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Gujarat
State, Gandhinagar (iii) A.M. Bhardwaj, IAS, Additional
Chief Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department,
Gujarat State, Gandhinagar (iv) Vijay Sinh Parmar, IAS,
the then Managing Director, Gujarat State Civil Supplies
Corporation (GSCSC), Gandhinagar and (v) D.K. Rao, IAS,
the then Director (Food, Department of Food & Civil
Supplies, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, Private Transport
Contractors.
1.1. As per the allegations made in the said complaint,
the Government of Gujarat, vide its letter dated
02.12.1998, desired CBI investigation in the allegation
relating to corruption in the State Civil Supplies
Corporation and Civil Supplies Corporation, Civil Supplies
& Consumer Affairs Department, causing undue
pecuniary loss to the Government of Gujarat to the tune
of Rs.6.40 crores. The Government of Gujarat has given
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
its consent vide notification dated 04.01.1999. As per the
allegations, Jashabhai Barad, the then Minister of Food,
Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Gujarat
State, Vitthalbhai Shah, the then Minister of State for
Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Gujarat State,
Gandhinagar, A.M. Bhardwaj, IAS, Additional Chief
Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Gujarat
State, Gandhinagar and Vijay Sinh Parmar, IAS, the then
Managing Director, Gujarat State Civil Supplies
Corporation (GSCSC), Gandhinagar, while working on the
said post during the year 1997-1998, in criminal
conspiracy with the private transport contractors,
committed the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating
and abused their official position inasmuch as, they
unjustifiably increased the transport rates of the
transport contracts for food grains i.e. wheat and rice and
levy sugar, which were awarded upto 31.10.1998.
Further, they unjustifiably extended the contract period
by one year i.e. upto 31.03.1999 and thereby, caused an
undue financial burden on the State Government to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
tune of Rs.6.40 crores. Thus, F.I.R. came to be registered
against the accused persons.
1.2. It is the case of the present applicant that two
distinct instances of offences of the same nature had
taken place, one in the Department of Food, Civil
Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Gujarat and
the other in the Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation
in respect of the transport contracts of food grains and
levy sugar. Since both the contracts were separately
finalized by different authorities and different
departments, the Investigating Officer filed separate
chargesheets and two separate cases were registered in
the Court. The case of the present applicant pertains to
the food-grain dealt with by the Gujarat State Civil
Supplies Corporation and the other case was registered
as Special Case No.29 of 2003, pertaining to the matter
of levy sugar dealt by the Department of Food, Civil
Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Gujarat.
1.3. It is the case of the applicant - accused that he is the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
transporter and not the public servant and a
representation to the Government had been made merely
for demanding increase in their rate of transportation.
According to him, the representation was considered by
the concerned authorities and officers and thereafter,
approved by the then Ministers. It is the case of the
applicant that though he has shown as accused, he has
not been chargesheeted and there is no iota of evidence
to show that the accused was party to the criminal
conspiracy, as alleged. The ingredients of Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code are also not prima facie satisfied
and the dispute is of a civil nature.
1.4. Subsequently, the investigation was carried out and
investigating officer has filed the chargesheet wherein,
the applicant has been shown as accused no.6. As per the
allegations made in the chargesheet, the present
applicant, in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy and
being a party to the said conspiracy, as authorized by
Shri Harish K. Panchal of Parichay Transport,
Ahmedabad, signed the representation containing false
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
claims for increase of transport rates on the ground of
price hike of diesel against Clause-38 of the Contract
Agreement and pursued the increase by causing wrongful
loss to the GSCSC and corresponding gain to himself and
for others.
Facts of Criminal Revision Application No.774 of
2008:-
1. As per the allegations levelled in the chargesheet
against the present applicant, the present applicant of
M/s.Asha Roadways, Kalol, in pursuance of the aforesaid
conspiracy and being a part of the said conspiracy, signed
and perused the representation containing false claims
for increase of transport rates on the ground of price hike
of diesel against Clause-25 of the Contract Agreement
and pursued the increase by causing wrongful loss to the
Government of Gujarat and corresponding gain to himself
and for others.
1.1. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant has
not demanded any rise in price and has not put signature
in the representation dated 03.09.1997 and the person,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
who put the signature on the said representation was
Mr.Mahesh Barot and, therefore, the applicant is not a
party in the process of demanding rise in the contractual
price on account of rise in diesel price. It is the case of
the applicant that there was high rise of 28% in the price
of diesel, which was made by the Central Government
and there is no evidence of cheating in the demand of rise
in the contractual rate. It is the case of the applicant that
there is a specific clause no.5 in the contract, which was
entered into between the transporter and the GSCSC Ltd.
wherein, it is mentioned that the price is fixed for a
period of one running i.e. from the place where the goods
that the GSCSC Ltd. would not pay any fare for the return
of vacant or empty truck and thus, it is clear that the rise
in the price of diesel would cause double expenditure.
1.2. Subsequently, the investigation was carried out and
investigating officer has filed the chargesheet wherein,
the applicant has been shown as accused no.8.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
1.3. The applicants of both the present Criminal Revision
Applications have preferred applications for discharge
before the learned trial Court vide exh.44 being Special
(CBI) Case Nos.30 and 29 of 2003, which came to be
rejected by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No.3,
Ahmedabad by judgment and order dated 22.12.2008.
2. Since the issue involved in both the Criminal
Revision Application is identical, the same are decided by
this common judgment.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Nandish Thackar for Thakkar
and Pahwa Advocates for the applicants, in both the
revision applications, has submitted that the order of the
learned Special Judge is illegal, erroneous, against the
evidence on record and against the provisions of law and,
therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set
aside. It is submitted that in the chargesheet, the only
allegation against the applicant of Criminal Revision
Application No.775 of 2008 is that applicant - Shri
Kamlesh S. Patel, in pursuance of the aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
conspiracy and being a party to the said conspiracy, as
authorized by Shri Harish K. Panchal of Parichay
Transport, Ahmedabad, signed the representation
containing false claims for increase of transport rates on
the ground of price hike of diesel against Clause-38 of the
Contract Agreement and pursued the increase by causing
wrongful loss to the GSCSC Ltd. and corresponding gain
to himself and for others. It is submitted that in the whole
chargesheet, so far as the allegation qua the applicant of
Criminal Revision Application No.774 of 2008 is
concerned, it is alleged that applicant - Shri Madhusudan
Govindlal Barot of M/s.Asha Roadways, Kalol, in
pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, being a party to
the said conspiracy, signed and perused the
representation containing false claims for increase of
transport rates on the ground of price hike of diesel
against Clause-25 of the Contract Agreement and
pursued the increase by causing wrongful loss to the
Government of Gujarat and corresponding gain to himself
and for others.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
3.1. It is submitted that after filing of the present
revision applications, the charge came to be framed
against both the accused persons of the respective
Special Case Nos.30 of 2003 and 29 of 2003 for the
offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also other
accused persons. It is submitted that in the trial Court, it
is the case of the prosecution that the present applicants
have forged the signature of the other transporters while
making the representation to the Government but, from
the chargesheet papers, nothing has been disclosed that
the present applicants have forged the signature of the
other transporters by making the same representation. It
is submitted that so far as applicant - Mr.Kamlesh S.
Patel is concerned, he is not the owner or partner of
'Parichay Transport Company' and merely employed as a
manager of the company. It is submitted that in both the
cases, after filing of the revision applications, the learned
Sessions Judge has framed the charge against all the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
accused persons and subsequently, amendment has been
made in the prayer clause of both the revision
applications. It is submitted that there was high rise in
the price of the diesel, which was made by the Central
Government and rise was beyond the control and because
of that, a representation for demand of rise in the
contractual price has been made, which cannot be
considered as cheating or there is no element of cheating
and there is no any criminality in the entire case and,
therefore, no any offence can be said to have been made
out against the present applicants. It is submitted that as
per the contract entered into between the transporter
and GSCSC Ltd., it is mentioned therein that the price is
fixed for a period of one running i.e. from the place where
mentioned that the GSCSC Ltd. would not pay any fare
for the return of vacant or empty truck and thus, it is
clear that the rise in the price of diesel would cause
double expenditure and even from the statement of one of
the Directors i.e. Mr.Agrawal from the Civil Supplies
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
Department, recorded in the preliminary inquiry, they
come to the conclusion that increase ought to have been
allowed to the extent of 11% approximately and rise in
the contractual rates of had to be increased, which was to
be revived on account of rise in the price of diesel.
3.2. It is further submitted that so far as the case of the
prosecution is concerned, it mainly based on the fact that
both the applicants have tried to cheat the Government
by making a representation and the said representation
has been made before the Government and by that, they
have also facilitated the government officials and the
Ministers to commit the offence under the provisions of
the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted that so
far as the government officials and the Ministers are
concerned, they have preferred applications being
Criminal Revision Application Nos.525 of 2016, 526 of
2016 and 527 of 2016 before this Court and in all the
three revision applications, by common judgment dated
19.09.2016, this Court was pleased to allow all the
revision applications and charge framed against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
accused persons in Special Case Nos.30 of 2003 and 29 of
2003 have been quashed and set aside and in result, they
have been discharged. It is submitted that, therefore,
when the then government officials and the Ministers
have already been discharged from the offences and the
said judgment has not been challenged by the respondent
- C.B.I. in any Court, now, no evidence has been found
against the present applicants, as there is no allegation of
cheating against the present applicants. So, it is
submitted that the present revision applications are
required to be allowed and the charges framed against
the present applicants may be quashed and set aside and
both the applicants may be discharged from the alleged
offence.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.R.C.
Kodekar for the respondent - Investigating Agency
submitted that there is a sufficient evidence found against
the both the applicants and that is why, the chargesheet
has been filed. It is submitted that even the charge has
been framed against both the accused persons. Hence,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
considering this, there is no illegality in the impugned
order passed by the Court below and at this stage, the
scope of interference is very limited. Hence, it is
submitted that the present revision applications are
required to be dismissed. Further, learned advocate
Mr.Kodekar has fairly admitted the fact that the then
Ministers and the government officials, against whom, the
prosecution sanction has been accorded by the competent
authority, they have already been discharged by this
Court and the said judgment of this Court passed in
Criminal Revision Application Nos.525 of 2016, 526 of
2016 and 527 of 2016 has not been challenged before any
Court. Learned advocate Mr.Kodekar also fairly conceded
the fact that from the chargesheet papers, it is not the
allegation against both the applicants that they have
forged signatures of other transporters in the said
representation, which was made pertaining to the
increase in the diesel price in the country.
5. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned
advocates for the respective parties and perusing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
judgment of the learned Sessions Court, so far as the
factual aspect of the present case is concerned, the sum
and substance of the prosecution case before the trial
court is to the effect that the State Government has
assigned contract of transporting commodities like sugar,
wheat etc. which are essential commodities and required
to be provided for timely distribution throughout and
within the State in time schedule. While assigning such
contract for the year 1997-1998, as per the standard draft
condition of the tender and work order for transportation,
there was a condition in the contract signed by the
successful transporters that they will not ask for hike in
price on any ground including rise in the price of petrol
or any other taxes or any similar ground. However, upon
reading the relevant condition no.38 of the contract, it
specifically confirms a restriction only upon the
transporters that they would not ask for any rise or hike
in contractual rate of transportation of commodities on
several contingencies like increase in the price of petrol,
diesel or spare parts or local or other taxes and simply
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
confirms that even if they ask for such rise then the
corporation would defend such rise at their risk and cost.
Such agreement was entered into between transporters
(Some of them are also accused in the main case) and
Gujarat State Civil Supply Corporation Limited, the
Government of Gujarat undertaking. Thereby, one thing is
clear that the present applicants are neither the party nor
signatory to such contract and thereby, such contract
does not bind them in any manner whatsoever.
6. However, when there was all of a sudden 28%
increase in the price of petrol and diesel on 02.09.1997,
some of the contractors have submitted their
representations on 04.10.1997 for increasing the rate of
their transportation charges. At the relevant time, one
Vitthalbhai Shah was the Minister of State for Civil
Supply and Consumer Affairs. Such Civil Supply &
Consumer Affairs Ministry of the State Government was
in-charge of the concerned Gujarat State Civil Supply
Corporation Limited. Therefore, initially, representation
was placed before him and he agreed to increase the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
transportation charges between 18% to 28%. On
15.10.1997, he died pending inquiry and trial and
therefore, this Court is now not concerned with his
activities as the case stands abated against him.
7. There was one another condition regarding period of
contract according to which, contract was valid only upto
21.04.1998. However, meanwhile considering the rise
and increase in the price of petrol and diesel and thereby
the rate for transportation of all kind of goods, the period
of contract for transportation of essential commodities
was also increased. Since such increase has resulted into
additional cost amounting to approximately Rupees two
crores and odd in all, on the basis of some information,
which may seem to be political with some ulterior motive,
C.B.I has started investigation and filed chargesheet
against as many as 16 accused persons under different
sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
Indian Penal Code, alleging that the present applicants
have violated the terms of contract and financial rules
and without according previous sanction from the finance
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
department, not only allowed the rise in the contractual
rate of transportation but released the payment also and
extended the period of contract at such higher rate and
thereby, they all being public servants committed the
offence under sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under
sections 420, 120 (B) and 144 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. In this regard, now, the role attributed by both the
present applicants is required to be considered. It
appears that both the applicants are merely the
transporters and they have made representations and
merely by making representation for increase in the rate
pursuant to the hike in the diesel price in the country, it
cannot be said that present applicants have hatched
criminal conspiracy along with the public servants and
committed the said offence. Further, from the material
produced along with the chargesheet, it appears that
there is nothing on record to establish that both the
applicants have gained any advantage of a nature of
financial or by making decision for increase in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
transportation rates. Even not a single iota of evidence
has been produced or even that the public servants have
received any amount or got monetary benefits from the
present applicants.
9. Further, it is required to be considered that so far as
the public servants are concerned, they have challenged
the order of framing of charge by preferring Criminal
Revision Application Nos.525 of 2016, 526 of 2016 and
527 of 2016 before this Court and this Court, vide
judgment dated 19.09.2026, has held as under:-
"49. It is also relevant to recollect that though
there was hike in price and extension of period of
contract, practically, contract of transporters was
terminated from 31st May, 1998. Though charges
were framed on 22.12.2008, till date these
proceedings before the Special Court is stayed by
the order of the High Court dated 2.7.2009 in
Criminal Revision Application No.774 of 2008 and
thereby, Special Court could not proceed in the
trial and hence, there is no reason for the
petitioner to challenge the charges till date.
Hence, there is no question of delay.
50. The entire dispute is based upon the
interpretation of a contract with the transporters
and hence, though these are criminal proceedings,
following observations based upon the law of
Contract would be relevant to be recollected here
which makes it clear that inadequacy of
consideration needs to be taken care of by the
Court. In view of such settled legal position on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
subject of inadequacy of consideration there must
be cogent and clear evidence of mens-rea to frame
charges, which is missing in the present case.
51. Inadequacy of consideration "may be a strong
evidence of fraud, when the transaction is such as
to be inconsistent with the sober manner of a man
conducting his affairs. When you see distress on
the one side and money on other and a wish on
the one side to press that distress into submission
to his own terms, inadequacy of his own terms,
inadequacy of price goes a great way in
warranting the Court to infer from this that some
sort of fraud was used to draw the other party into
the bargain; it may be such an ingredient of fraud
as to make the Court presume more than is in
actual proof; and I shall never quarrel with a
Court of Equity which makes such an inference
where the inadequacy is so gross, as makes it
impossible that the bargain could have been fairly
made" (in the case between Per Evre C.B. Griffith
Vs. Spratley reported in (1887)1 Cox 383 (388,
389)). Inadequacy of consideration may become a
most material circumstance when one of the
parties to a transaction is from age, ignorance,
distress, incapacity, weakness of mind, body or
disposition, or from humble position or other such
circumstances unable to protect himself (in the
case between Kerr, Fraud, p.169. See Keshab
Chandra Nayak Vs.Laxmidhar Nayak, AIR 1993
Ori 1(8): 1991(72) Cut LT 539: (1992)2 Ori LR
517: 1992(1) Civ LJ 292 and also section 31 of
Specific Relief Act, 1963). Thus though
inadequacy of price is not alone sufficient to
authorise the vacating of a contract or the sale of
a reversion, yet the inadequacy of price coupled
with the inexperience and absence of any
competent advice on the part of the seller are
sufficient to set in motion the protective powers of
the Court of equity (in the case of Tennent Vs.
Tennent (1870)2 HLC; Administrator - General of
Bengal Vs.Juggeshwar, 3 Cal 192; Kalimuthu
Vs.Maung Tha Din, 14 Rang 392: AIR 1936 Rang
491 and in the case between Devji Shivji
Vs.Karsandas Raji, AIR 1954 Pat 280). Where the
inadequacy of consideration is so glaring and the
circumstances surrounding the contract are so
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
suspicious as to lead the court to the view not that
one of the parties has made a bad bargain merely,
but that one of the parties must have been
imposed upon and taken advantage of by a person
who had better means of knowledge than he
himself possessed, the contract may be set-aside
(in the case between Kalimuthu Vs.Maung Tha
Win, 14 Rang 392, AIR 1936 Rang 491). Where
the consideration for a promise is unreal as where
the promisor gets nothing in return for his
promise except that to which he is already legally
entitled to, the promise cannot be enforced (in the
case between Kedari Bin Vs.Atmarambhat
reported in 3, BHC AC 11 (18, 19))". Neither
common law nor equity normally inquires into the
adequacy of the consideration which the
purchaser provides. But such an enquiry would be
central to any defence solely based on a defence
of change of possession, for, it is a defence which
operates to discharge, wholly or in part, a
defendant's duty to make restitution. There was a
change of position of the parties including the
creditors, pursuant to the sale and the applicant
being put in possession. In that context, the
adequacy of consideration paid by the applicant
will be a relevant consideration. It needs to be
noted that the sale in favour of the applicant was
set aside by the Supreme Court mainly on the
ground that the consideration paid was grossly
inadequate (in the case between Allahabad Bank
& Ors. Vs. Bengal Paper Mills Co.Ltd. & Ors.
reported in (2004)8 SCC 236).
52. In view of the above facts and circumstances,
it is quite clear and obvious that there is no
evidence against the petitioners in the bunch of
charge sheet produced before the court so as to
frame the charge as alleged in the charge sheet
and therefore, framing of charge is illegal and
hence, the same needs to be quashed and set
aside. Thereby in absence of any prima facie
evidence against the petitioners, they are entitled
to get the benefit of discharge from the alleged
offences.
53. For the reasons aforesaid, I am constrained to
allow the revisions. Consequently, the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
charges are set aside and the petitioners are
discharged from the charges leveled against them
in the charge-sheet.
54. I have scrutinized the prima facie evidence on
record which categorically fails to prove the
involvement of the accused in commission of
crime and that there is no prima facie evidence
against him for framing the charges, hence the
revision applications deserves to be allowed."
10. Considering this, in view of the above facts, there is
no evidence regarding allegations made against both the
present applicants that they have forged any signature or
have hatched any conspiracy with the public servants and
also there is no iota of evidence and even from the
chargesheet papers, ingredients of Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code are not constituted. Further, as this
Court has already discharged the said public servants
from the offence, in view of the above facts and
circumstances, now, it is clear and obvious that there is
no evidence against the present applicants in bunch of
chargesheet produced before the Court.
11. Therefore, order of framing of charge and rejecting
the discharge applications itself is illegal and the same
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
needs to be quashed and set aside. In absence of any
prima facie evidence against the present applicants, they
are entitled to get the benefit of discharge from the
alleged offence.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, I am constrained to allow
the revision applications. Consequently, the impugned
charges are set aside and the applicants are discharged
from the charges leveled against them in the charge-
sheet.
13. I have scrutinized the prima facie evidence on
record, which categorically fails to prove the involvement
of the accused in commission of crime and that, there is
no prima facie evidence against them for framing the
charges, hence the revision applications deserves to be
allowed.
14. In view of the above facts and circumstances,
present Criminal Revision Application Nos.775 of 2008
and 774 of 2008 are hereby allowed, as prayed for.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/775/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
Thereby, charges framed against the present applicants
i.e. Kamlesh Shantilal Patel and Madhusudan Govindlal
Barot in the respective cases on 19.03.2009 in Special
Case Nos.30 of 2003 and 29 of 2003 are hereby quashed
and set aside. Further, judgment and order dated
22.12.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI
Court No.3, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Special Case Nos.30
of 2003 and 29 of 2003 in the respective revision
applications, rejecting the discharge applications
preferred by the respective applicants is quashed and set
aside, which results into discharging of the applicants
from the charges leveled against them in such Special
Case Nos.30 of 2003 and 29 of 2003. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Hitesh
