[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Jitendra Jagdishbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/993/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 993 of 2025
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.
1 of 2025
In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 993 of 2025
================================================================
JITENDRA JAGDISHBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. A S TIMBALIA(7372) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. KRINA P.CALLA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. On 04.08.2025, considering the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court had
passed the order in the Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2025
in Criminal Appeal No.993 of 2025, observing as under :
"9. Having considered the arguments advanced by
learned advocate Mr.Anik Timbalia appearing for the
applicant-convict as well as taking into consideration the
fact regarding non-compliance of the directions issued by
this Court vide order dated 10.03.2025 passed in Criminal
Revision Application No.353 of 2025, by the trial court, it
appears that the remarks in this regard are required to be
called for from the concerned trial court as well as the
learned APP who conducted the matter.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/993/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
10. Registry is, therefore, directed to call for the remarks of
the concerned trial court through the learned Sessions
Judge, Surat, and the learned APP through the DGP, Surat,
as to which were the prevailing circumstances which lead to
the disposal of the case without even taking into
consideration the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 10.03.2025 passed in
Criminal Revision Application No.353 of 2025."
2. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the
registry has placed on record the remarks dated 18.08.2025 of
the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court Judge (NDPS), Surat,
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.J.N.Pardiwala,
who conducted the trial before the Special Court.
3. On 26.09.2025, learned advocate Mr.Devansh N.Kakkad
for Mr.A.S.Timbalia, learned advocate appearing for the
applicant, had produced a set of additional documents, and
Mr.K.I.Modi, Police Inspector, DCB Police Station, Surat, who
was present in the court, was directed to file affidavit on or
before 01.10.2025, and pursuant to the said direction, Mr.Modi
had filed the affidavit on 07.10.2025, which was ordered to be
taken on record.
4. On 10.11.2025, learned Additional Public Prosecutor of the
trial court Mr.J.N.Pardiwala had voluntarily remained present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/993/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
before the court, and the submissions advanced by both the
sides were considered.
5. On 11.11.2025, learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla appearing
for the respondent - State had tendered a letter dated
11.11.2025 sent by Mr.J.N.Pardiwala, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor of the trial court and had submitted that
Mr.Pardiwala seeks time to place on record his further
explanation.
6. It is made clear that this Court had not directed
Mr.J.N.Pardiwala, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, to
remain present or to submit his further explanation. However,
since he had voluntarily requested, his request was acceded to.
In turn, he has submitted his written explanation on
12.11.2025, which is ordered to be taken on record.
7. On bare perusal of the remarks dated 18.08.2025 filed by
the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court Judge (NDPS), Surat,
as well as the remarks dated 18.08.2025 and the written
explanation dated 12.11.2025 of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor of the trial court Mr.J.N.Pardiwala, there appears
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/993/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
major contradictions. Further, on conjoint reading of the
remarks of the learned Presiding Officer and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor along with the affidavit dated
07.10.2025 filed by the Police Inspector, DCB Police Station,
Surat, it appears that there are several inconsistencies in their
version.
8. It is evident from the materials on record that a Coordinate
Bench of this Court (Coram: Hasmukh D.Suthar.J.), vide order
dated 10.03.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Application
(against order passed by subordinate court) No.353 of 2025,
observed thus :
"6. Considering the importance of a fair trial and the
applicant's right to present his defense, this Court found it
appropriate to direct the production of the muster roll dated
September 23 to 25, 2023. The court noted that this
document is a public record available in a public office and
that obtaining a certified copy would serve the purpose
without causing undue delay.
7. The applicant is permitted to apply to the DCB Police
Station in Surat to obtain a certified copy of the muster roll
for the specified dates. Upon receiving the copy, the
applicant may produce it before the learned Sessions Judge.
The Sessions Judge is directed to accept the copy, allowing
both parties to make their submissions regarding its
contents.
8. If the applicant approaches the in-charge of the DCB
Police Station for the certified copy of the muster roll dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/993/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
September 23 to 25, 2023, the officer is directed to provide
the same at the applicant's expense as expeditiously as
possible."
9. On 11.03.2025, an application Exh.100 was moved before
the trial court by the learned advocate appearing for the
applicant-accused, inter alia, specifically stating that since the
Coordinate Bench of the High Court has issued the
aforementioned directions to the trial court, the matter may be
adjourned till the compliance of the order passed by the High
Court is made by the trial court.
10. It also appears that the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor of the trial court Mr.J.N.Pardiwala had also made an
endorsement on the said application that since the inquiry is
necessitated concerning the said matter, it may appropriately be
adjourned.
11. After considering the application Exh.100 as well as the
endorsement made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.J.N.Pardiwala, the trial court adjourned the matter on the
next day, i.e. on 12.03.2025, and directed the learned APP
Mr.Pardiwala to inquire into submissions made by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/993/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
advocate for the applicant-accused in the said application
Exh.100 and to report the same sharply at 11:00 a.m. on
12.03.2025.
12. It is evident from the record that on 12.03.2025, the Police
Inspector, DCB Police Station, Surat, Mr.K.I.Modi, had remained
present in the court and submitted that the information sought
for by the applicant through RTI is not applicable to and
exempts the Police Commissioner, Crime Branch, under Section
24(4) of the Rights to Information Act, 2005, and the Notification
issued by the Home Department bearing No.S.B-1/102001/
8203/GOI-62 dated 25.10.2005. Further, as per the circular by
the Police Commissioner, the information sought for by the
applicant-accused cannot be provided.
13. It is needless to say that any circular issued by the Police
Commissioner cannot prevail over the specific directions issued
by the High Court on its judicial side.
14. Immediately thereafter on the same day, i.e. on
12.03.2025, without even verifying the factum as to the
directions issued by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/993/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
though the Youtube link of the live-streaming of the Coordinate
Bench of the High Court was provided, the trial court hastily
pronounced the judgment, convicting the applicant-accused for
the alleged offence and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment
for ten years.
15. Considering the aforesaid, it prima facie appears that the
learned Presiding Officer, acting in an unnecessary haste,
decided the case ignoring the directions issued by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.03.2025 passed in
Criminal Revision Application No.353 of 2025, which is not
proper. The rule of law requires a fair opportunity to defend
oneself, which is a cornerstone of due process and natural
justice.
16. Judicial discipline expects that when the trial court has
been specifically informed that the High Court has passed
certain directions, then the trial court is duty bound to verify the
same before pronouncing the judgment. It appears that the
learned APP Mr.Pardiwala of the trial court and the Police
Inspector Mr.Modi have not reported the true facts before the
trial court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/993/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
12.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) and 12 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Special (NDPS) Case No.11
of 2024, is hereby quashed and set-aside.
18. The matter is remanded back to the trial court. The learned
Special Judge (NDPS), Surat, is directed to consider the case
afresh after complying with the directions issued by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.03.2025
passed in Criminal Revision Application No.353 of 2025, and
after affording sufficient opportunity to the accused to defend.
19. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not gone into
the merits of the case.
20. In view of the aforesaid order, no order is required to be
passed in the Criminal Misc. Application for suspension of
sentence, and the same stands disposed of accordingly.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J.)
/MOINUDDIN
