Gujarat High Court

Dilipbhai Ramanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2025

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                        R/CR.RA/354/2025                                         CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                                                               Reserved On : 08.09.2025
                                                                               Pronounced On : 26/09/2025

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
                                    SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 354 of 2025


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

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

                                  Approved for Reporting                         Yes            No

                      ==========================================================
                                                  DILIPBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL
                                                             Versus
                                                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR YASH V GUPTA(11814) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR HK PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                       CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA


                                                          CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 26/09/2025

1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr.H.K. Patel waives service of

Rule for the respondent - State.

2. The present Revision Application has been preferred by

the applicant-original accused under Section 397 read with

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing

against the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Dharampur in Special

ACB Case No.1 of 2023, whereby the application preferred

by the present applicant under Section 227 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for discharge in ACB Case No.1 of 2023

vide Exh. 9 came to be rejected.

3. The short facts leading to the filing of the present

Revision Application are that one complaint came to be filed

by first informant - Ms.Pratimaben Kantilal Bareliwala on

08.05.2023 before the ACB Police Station against the

present applicant-accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act (as amended in 2018).

4. In the nutshell, it is alleged in the complaint that she

was appointed as a Teaching Assistant at Arunoday

Sarvajanik Vidyalaya, Taluka: Kaprada, District: Valsad on

20.07.2017 and upon completion of 5 years of service, she

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

became entitled to be appointed as a permanent teacher

and to receive full salary. The petitioner - Mr.Dilipbhai Patel

herein, who was serving as In-charge Principal at the

relevant time, had accepted her application for permanent

recruitment and full salary about five months earlier. At

that time, the petitioner allegedly told her that her

performance was not satisfactory and that he would make

adverse remarks in her C.R., which would prevent her from

securing a permanent job. It is further alleged that he stated

that without the society's resolution, the process would not

be proceeded and, therefore, demanded a bribe of

Rs.50,000/-.

5. At that time, the complainant requested him not to do

so, but the accused reiterated that if she wanted full salary,

she must pay Rs.50,000/-. It is further stated in the

complaint that on 01.05.2023, the petitioner called her on

the phone and said that her salary had been credited and

asked whether she was coming to give money or would

transfer it via Google Pay. Again, on 04.05.2023, he

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

telephoned her, stating that others had already paid the

same amount. When the first informant requested a

reduction, the petitioner refused, stating that the society

would not agree to the same. She insisted on reducing the

amount to Rs.25,000/-, but the petitioner denied, claiming

that the material costs were high and reiterated the demand

of Rs.50,000/-, instructing her to pay. Upon unwillingness

to pay the same amount, the first informant lodged a

complaint with the ACB police station on 08.05.2023.

6. Pursuant to the said complaint, a trap was arranged

and the present applicant was caught by the ACB officials in

the presence of panch witnesses while accepting the

amount. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and the

Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet. The present

applicant preferred an application for discharge, which

came to be rejected by the Sessions Court, and therefore the

present Revision Application has been filed by the

petitioner.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Vishal K. Anandjiwala,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

appearing on behalf of the applicant, vehemently submitted

that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is

erroneous, unjustified and contrary to the settled principles

of law and, therefore, requires to be set aside. It is further

submitted that the observations made by the learned

Sessions Judge while rejecting the application vide the

impugned order are contrary to law and facts and are based

merely on presumptions and assumptions.

7.1. It is submitted that there was an audio conversation

between the accused and the complainant, which forms part

of the charge-sheet and from this conversation, it clearly

emerges that the amount demanded by the applicant-

accused was not towards the illegal gratification, but was

demanded from all the newly recruited teachers as per the

decision of the Teachers' Mandal, towards donation for the

development of the school. It is submitted that amount of

Rs.50,000/- was being collected from each new teachers

and this aspect has not been considered by the Court below.

It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has also

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

failed to consider the transcription of the said conversation

between the accused and the complainant.

7.2. It is further submitted that no one would demand

bribe money through an online platform like Google Pay.

From the charge-sheet papers, it is revealed that as per the

complainant's own allegations, the C.R. of the complainant

had already been filled in by the present applicant and no

adverse remarks were made. The proposal had also been

sent to the concerned authority for making the complainant

permanent and granting her full salary. Hence, the very

foundation of the complaint is doubtful.

7.3. It is further submitted that there is no material

produced along with the charge-sheet to establish that the

present applicant demanded or accepted illegal gratification.

The transcript of conversation shows that the petitioner only

referred to the practice of certain mandalis charging Rs.2 to

3 lakhs for school development, whereas their mandali had

asked only for Rs.50,000/- which is also supported by

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

statements of other witnesses, who were present in the

earlier meetings with newly recruited teachers, in which the

complainant was also present. Thus, the amount was

towards the school development and not by way of illegal

gratification.

7.4. It is further submitted that even from the conversation

dated 04.05.2023, it appears that the applicant was trying

to obtain personal and educational details of the

complainant for uploading on the DEO portal, but due to

some personal difficulty, she could not attend his call. This

conversation was placed before the trap was led on

08.05.2023.

7.5. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court, in

para 5 of the impugned order, has failed to properly assess

the nature of the conversation and has selectively

considered portions of it, unjustly rejecting the discharge

application. It is submitted that the alleged preliminary

demand of bribe has not been proved and even the elements

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

of acceptance and recovery do not establish an offence

under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

7.6. It is also submitted that at the time of trap

proceedings, the petitioner had taken a khaki cover and

made an endorsement with the signature of the person, who

gave the money, which itself shows that the money was for a

specific purpose and not for illegal gratification. From the

panchnama also, it appears that the applicant had called

his clerk to bring a khaki cover, but since he was busy with

admission work, the applicant himself procured it.

Considering this, prima facie, it appears that the amount of

Rs.50,000/- was not towards illegal gratification, but

towards the donation, as supported by statements of other

witnesses. Hence, there is no sufficient material even to

proceed against the applicant.

7.7. It is, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the

learned Trial Court is contrary to settled legal principles and

requires to be set aside and that the present applicant

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

deserves to be discharged.

7.8. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of

Delhi), reported in 2023 Cri.L.J. 1856, wherein it was held

that proof of demand of gratification by a public servant is

sine qua non for an offence under the Prevention of

Corruption Act and that, payment is also required to be

proved. It is submitted that in the present case, no previous

demand has been established by way of material produced

with the charge-sheet and even at the time of the trap, no

demand was made.

7.9. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State through Central

Bureau of Investigation v. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava,

reported in AIR 2017 SC 3698 wherein, it is held that even

at the stage of deciding a discharge application, the Court

has to consider the sufficiency of material placed on record,

including the transcript of phone conversations. It is

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

submitted that no material, either direct or circumstantial,

has been produced along with the charge-sheet to establish

that the present applicant demanded, accepted, or obtained

illegal gratification. The genesis of the offence is itself

doubtful. Hence, the present application is required to be

allowed.

8. Learned A.P.P. Mr.H.K. Patel has vehemently opposed

the present Criminal Revision Application and submitted

that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court are

just and proper and do not require any interference.

Further, it is submitted that, at that stage, the Court has

not to hold any trial and it is not permissible for the Court

to appreciate the evidence. It is submitted that at that stage,

the Court has only to consider the material produced, where

there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the present

applicant. Further, he has submitted that from the

telephonic conversation also, it transpired that the present

applicant had forcefully demanded money from the

complainant. From the witness statements also, it

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

transpires that the present applicant has never sought to

give any receipt to any of the persons, who had given money

as alleged donation for development of the school. Further,

the president of the Mandli is the father of the present

applicant and the present applicant was found in the

presence of the panchas, accepting the amount and even

during the panchanama, the presence of the head of the

founder has also been found as a witness against the

present applicant-accused. Considering this, it is submitted

that there is no illegality committed by the learned Sessions

Court and, therefore, the present Revision Application

deserves to be rejected. Further, the learned A.P.P. has

relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap

reported in (2021) LawSuit (SC) 271, decided on 13.04.2021

and P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, reported in (2010) LawSuit

(SC) 35, decided on 27.01.2010.

8.1. It is submitted that in view of the above, the present

Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merits and the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

same is required to be rejected.

9. After hearing the rival submissions of the learned

advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the

order passed by the learned trial Court, at this juncture, it

would be appropriate to refer to the observations made by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v.

Ramesh Chander & Anr., reported in (2012) LawSuit (SC)

609, particularly paragraph nos. 8 and 9.

"[8] Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying it- self as to the legality and regularity of any pro- ceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of Jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropri- ate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful con- sideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various Judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdic- tion can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no com-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

pliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evi- dence is ignored or judicial discretion is exer- cised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not ex- haustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.

[9] Another well-accepted norm is that the revi- sional jurisdiction of the higher court is avery lim- ited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the ex- ercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to Injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accor- dance with law in a given case, it may be reluc- tant to interfere in exercise of its revisional juris- diction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceed- ings under the Cr.P.C."

10. Thus, from the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Apex

Court, it is clear that the scope of interference and the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is extremely limited. Even, the powers

under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are

to be exercised by the Court very sparingly and only where

the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there

is non-compliance with the provisions of law, or the findings

recorded by the Trial Court are based on no evidence, or

material evidence has been ignored, or judicial discretion

has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely while deciding

the application for discharge. The Court exercising

revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, is required to be extremely circumspect

while interfering with the order passed by the learned trial

Court.

11. Considering this, in the present case, it is the case of

the applicant-original accused before this Court that no

demand has been made by the present applicant from the

complainant towards any illegal gratification. It is stated

that the amount was demanded from the newly recruited

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

teachers as per the decision taken by the President of the

Mandal of the High School and the In-charge Principal, i.e.,

the present applicant. It is the further case that in the said

meeting, held on 21.04.2023, the newly recruited teachers

as well as other teachers, including the complainant, were

present. The purpose of the meeting was to carry out the

repairing work of the shed of the school and since the

Mandal did not have sufficient balance and the old teachers

had already contributed, it was decided to take donations

from the newly recruited teachers. Accordingly, five teachers

were to contribute Rs.50,000/- each to the In-charge

Principal, i.e., the present applicant.

12. In this regard, it is found that the present applicant

made a telephonic call to the complainant, demanding

money, stating that the same was required for bringing

materials as the school was closed for vacation. The said

conversation between the complainant and the accused took

place on 04.05.2023 and pursuant thereto, the complainant

approached the ACP Police officials. Subsequently, two

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

panchas were arranged and a trap was led, wherein the

present applicant-accused was caught while accepting the

amount. Further, considering the main argument advanced

by the learned advocate for the applicant that no demand

was made by the present applicant towards any illegal

gratification and that the amount was only demanded as a

donation for the construction of the shed in the school

building, reliance is placed on the transcript produced along

with the charge-sheet. In this regard, it is required to

consider that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of P.

Vijayan v. State of Kerala, reported in 2010 LawSuit (SC) 35,

has laid down the guidelines while deciding an application

for discharge. It has been discussed therein that, while

deciding an application under Section 227 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the Court has to examine the record to

see whether the allegations, prima facie, disclose the

offence.

13. So, considering this, it is now required to be examined

the allegations levelled against the present applicant. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

allegation is that the present applicant has demanded an

amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and further,

from the statement of other witnesses, it also emerges that

it was decided to give donation voluntarily. It also emerges

that no receipt was issued by the present applicant

regarding the amount received, which was accepted by the

present applicant and after conclusion of the investigation,

the Investigating Officer has filed a charge-sheet against the

present applicant for the offences punishable under

Sections 7, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. Insofar as the reliance placed by the

learned advocate for the applicant upon the transcript of the

conversation between the complainant and the accused is

concerned, in this regard, it is required to consider the

dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of

Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, reported in 2021

LawSuit (SC) 271, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held

as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

"9.2 In the recent decision of this Court in the case of M.R. Hiremath (supra), one of us (Justice D.Y. Chandrachud) speaking for the Bench has observed and held in paragraph 25 as under:

25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an ap-

plication for discharge under the provisions of Sec- tion 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the ex- ercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled princi- ple of law that at the stage of considering an appli- cation for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, 2014 11 SCC 709, adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held: (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29).

29. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differ- ently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the ma- terials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has com- mitted the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.

[11] Having considered the reasoning given by the High Court and the grounds which are weighed with the High Court while discharging the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has ex- ceeded in its jurisdiction in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and has acted beyond the scope of Sec- tion 227/239 Cr.P.C. While discharging the ac- cused, the High Court has gone into the merits of the case and has considered whether on the basis of the material on record, the accused is likely to be convicted or not. For the aforesaid, the High Court has considered in detall the transcript of the conver- sation between the complainant and the accused which exercise at this stage to consider the dis- charge application and/or framing of the charge is not permissible at all. As rightly observed and held

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

by the learned Special Judge at the stage of fram- ing of the charge, it has to be seen whether or not a prima facie case is made out and the defence of the accused is not to be considered. After considering the material on record including the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the ac- cused, the learned Special Judge having found that there is a prima facie case of the alleged offence un- der Section 7 of the PC Act, framed the charge against the accused for the said offence. The High Court materially erred in negating the exercise of considering the transcript in detail and in consider- ing whether on the basis of the material on record the accused is likely to be convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act or not. As observed hereinabove, the High Court was required to con- sider whether a prima facie case has been made out or not and whether the accused is required to be further tried or not. At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge applica- tion, the mini trial is not permissible. At this stage, it is to be noted that even as per Section 7 of the PC Act, even an attempt constitutes an offence. There- fore, the High Court has erred and/or exceeded in virtually holding a mini trial at the stage of dis- charge application."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

14. So, considering this, at the time of deciding an

application for discharge, the Court is not required to con-

sider the transcript produced by the investigating agency in

detail and at this stage, the Court is not permitted to hold a

mini trial or to weigh the evidence in detail. The Court has

only to consider whether there is sufficient material pro-

duced against the accused to proceed further or not. It is

not the duty of the Court, at this stage, to examine whether

the material produced along with the charge-sheet would ul-