Satyanarayan Tarachand Jaju@ Jajoo vs State Of Gujarat
2026 Latest Caselaw 93 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Satyanarayan Tarachand Jaju@ Jajoo vs State Of Gujarat on 19 January, 2026

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.RA/2168/2025                                 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

                                                                                                             undefined




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED
                               BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 2168 of 2025

                       ======================================================
                                SATYANARAYAN TARACHAND JAJU@ JAJOO
                                                    Versus
                                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ======================================================
                       Appearance:
                       AKASH A SINGH(8713) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR RAJESH K KANANI(2157) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR.TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ======================================================

                       CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                                                          Date : 19/01/2026

                                                           ORAL ORDER

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service.

2. The applicant herein, by preferring the present revision application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is assailing the judgment and order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal Diustrict and Sessions Judge and Designated Special Judge (PMLA), Ahmedabad (Rural), below exh. 91 in PMLA Case No. 2 of 2015 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application preferred by the present applicant seeking discharge for the alleged offence committed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundaring Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002).

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

3. Facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell, are as follow:

3.1 A Complaint was received by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Banking Securities and Frauds Cell (BS&FC), Mumbai from the General Manager-II, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhadra, Ahmedabad-380001 against Manoj Kumar Gupta, the then Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Salabatpura Branch, Surat that he abused his position as a public servant and entered into criminal conspiracy with one Dinesh Karamsinh Jalalpara, Managing Director, Himatbhai M. Patel, Director, Rajesh S. Jariwala, all Chartered Accountants of M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt.

Ltd. and other unknown persons for committing the offence of cheating, forgery of valuable security, forgery for cheating and using false documents as genuine with State Bank of India and to cause pecuniary gains to M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd. By the aforesaid acts, the accused persons caused wrongful loss of Rs.844.69 lakh to the State Bank of India, Salabatpura Branch, Surat during the year 2009. The CBI, BS&FC, Mumbai, had therefore, registered an FIR No. 2 (E)/2010 dated 29.01.2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for investigation into the alleged offences including criminal conspiracy and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) against Manoj Kumar Gupta and his accomplices. That Sections 420, 467, 471 r/w, 120B of the IPC and the Section 13 of the PC Act are scheduled

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

offences under the PMLA, 2002.

3.2 The CBI, after investigation into the alleged offences, filed a Police Report / Charge-sheet dated 13.09.2010 under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) before the CBI Special Court at Ahmedabad and the same was numbered as Special CBI Case No. 54 of 2010. Further, in terms of Section 44 r/w. Section 43 of the PMLA, 2002, an application was preferred by the Enforcement Directorate before the learned Designated Special Court of CBI at Ahmedabad, requesting to commit the trial of the Special case No. 54 of 2010 to that Court. The CBI Special Court at Ahmedabad, on 29.09.2016 allowed the application and the Special CBI Case No. 54 of 2010 was committed to that Court.

3.3 The investigation conducted by the CBI, BS&FC, Mumbai, revealed that M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Itd. was established on 16.11.2006 with its Directors Dineshbhai K. Jalalpara and Himmat M. Patel, which was engaged in the construction business from its office at 101/102 Triangle Complex, Opp. Sargam Shopping Centre, Parle Point, Surat. Mr. Rajesh Shyamlal Jariwala was the Chartered Accountant of the company and Manoj Kumar Gupta, Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Salabatpura, Surat was in close contact with all the persons mentioned above.

3.4 M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt.ltd. had entered into a

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

contract for sale of Iron Ore Fines of Qty: 50 000 DMT with M/s. HLL Life Care Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram vide Contract No. HLL/CTD/09-10/5 dated 15.06.2009. M/s. A. R. Logistics, Mandya, was the co-seller and M/s. A. R. Metallurgicals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, was guarantor in the said contract. M/s. HLL Life Care Ltd. through their bankers, State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Thiruvananthapuram opened an LC No. 04350009LC0000010 on 23.06.2009 for an amount of Rs.12,37,50,000/-. Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Chief Manager, SBI, Salabatpura Branch, Surat, through R. S. Jariwala, CA, advised Dinesh Jalalpara to request M/s. HLL Life care Ltd. to amend the LC to the extent that the advising bank becomes SBI, Salabatpura instead of Karnataka Bank and that Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Chief Manager, SBI, Salabatpura Branch, Surat had agreed to discount the LC. Manoj Kumar Gupta, vide letter No. BR/90 dated 28.07.2009 requested AGM, SBI, Thiruvananthapuram to change the advising bank as SBI, Salabatpura instead of SBI, Ring Road, Surat.

3.5 Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Chief Manager, SBI, Salabatpura Branch, Surat, before being posted to Surat was posted at SBI, Dehradun. He had opened some fictitious accounts at SBI Dehradun and there were debit balances in those accounts. In order to clear the outstanding amount of aforesaid accounts at Dehradun, he created various fictitious accounts at SBI Salabatpura, Surat, including A/c. No.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

30673163171 in the name of Nandlal Memorial Education, A/c. No. 30863242026 in the name of Shri Modh Patni Co.-op. Credit Society and A/c. No. 30728699939 in the name of M/s. Jagdamba Yarns.

3.6 Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Chief Manager, SBI, Salabatpura Branch, Surat, had opened a fictitious account bearing No. 30863242026 in the name of M/s. Modh Patni Co- Op Society, without any documents and fraudulently transferred Rs.25 lakh on 29.07.2009 and Rs.1.25 crore on 21.08.2009 to M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd. having their account bearing No. 7262000100191701 with Karnataka Bank by debiting the fictitious account created in the name of M/s. Modh Patni Co-op. Society. Further, Mr. Dinesh Jalalpara, Director of M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd., from their account held in Karnataka Bank, Surat, transferred Rs.29.75 lakh to Mr. Raju Jariwala and his company R. S. Jariwala & Co.

3.7 Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta with an intention to cheat the State Bank of India advised Dinesh Jalalpara to obtain the documents pertaining to the earlier shipments made by M/s. HLL Life Care Ltd. accordingly, Dinesh Jalalpara procured documents from one Girish Kumar, GM, CTD, HLL Life Care Ltd., through email on 06.10.2009. The documents, Bill of lading, Certificates of quality, Weight, Origin, detailed draft survey report and Provisional invoice pertaining to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

shipment of Iron Ore Fines of 55000 MT made by HLL Life Care Ltd. On 28.04.2009 were received. These documents were altered by Dinesh Jalalpara and his servant Harish Raval on 06.10.2009 on the directions of Manoj Kumar Gupta in the office of M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd. The documents were so altered that they appeared to be genuine documents as if the shipments were made by M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd. and the letter of acceptance dated 24.10.2009 purported to have been issued by Girish Kumar, GM, M/s. HLL Life Care to the AGM, SBI, Thiruvananthapuram regarding the acceptance of bill under LC No. 04350009LC0000010, Bill No. 001/2009-10 was also prepared by Harish Raval, Servant of Dinesh Jalalpara on the advice of Manoj Kumar Gupta.

3.8 Manoj Kumar Gupta had prepared an application dated 08.10.2009, on his office computer on behalf of Dinesh Jalalpara, requesting the Chief Manager SBI, Salabatpura to accept the documents and discount the bill under LC 04350009LC0000010, issued by SBI, Thiruvananthapuram. Manoj Kumar Gupta asked Dinesh Jalalpara to submit pre- signed blank cheques pertaining to the account No. 30832024002 of M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd., RTGS forms, Debit vouchers with an intention to utilize the defrauded amount which was agreed by Dinesh Jalalpara and he submitted the same to Manoj Gupta.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

3.9 Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta misused his official position in flouting all norms and bank rules discounted the LC on the strength of fake documents. He prepared the credit voucher for crediting the discounted amounting to Rs.12,12,75,000/- against the LC in the Account No. 30832024002 of M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd. and corresponding debit voucher in LC discounting Account No. 30915375967. He had not made any correspondence to the controlling office of SBI regarding the discounting of LC done by him even though the branch he was heading was not authorised to discount the LC. M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd. had diverted Rs.846.85 lakh between the period from 08.10.2009 to 30.10.2009 which were utilised by Manoj Kumar Gupta, Rajesh Jariwala and Dinesh Jalalpara.

3.10 Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta had on 06.11.2009 confessed before the Regional Manager, SBI, Surat that he had passed unauthorised transactions for his personal benefits amounting to Rs.1 crore from the fictitious account of M/s. Nandlal Memorial Education Society and Rs.11.28 lakh from another fictitious account of M/s. Jagdamba Yarns to clear the outstanding of two accounts of M/s. Bhavishya Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Augurs Well E Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

3.11 By the aforesaid acts of commission and omission on the part of the accused Manoj Kumar Gupta, Dinesh

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

Jalalpara, R. S. Jariwala, M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd. and others, they are guilty of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC r/w. Section 120B of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. Due to above mentioned fraudulent transaction a wrongful loss of Rs.846.85 lakh was caused to the State Bank of India and corresponding gain to the accused persons.

3.12 The CBI, BS and FC, Mumbai arrested Manoj Kumar Gupta, accused No. 2 Dinesh Jalalpara, Accused No. 1 and Mr. Rajesh Shyamlal Jariwala, accused No. 4 were placed under arrest on 17.06.2010 based on the Charge-sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC r/w. Section 120B of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. Further, the Sections 420, 467, 471 of the IPC r/w. Section 120B of the IPC and Section 13 of PC Act, 1988 are scheduled offences under the PMLA, 2002. Accordingly, the Directorate of Enforcement recorded an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/60/AZO/2010 dated 23.11.2010 for investigation into the offence of money laundering, in terms of the PMLA, 2002.

3.13 The investigations conducted under PMLA, 2002 revealed that Manoj Kumar Gupta, formerly the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Salbatpura Branch, in conspiracy with Dinesh Jalalpara, R.S. Jariwala and others, fraudulently and by the acts of omission and commission,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

discounted LC, in favour of M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd. on the strength of fake documents. He has allowed the proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.12,12,75,000/- to be transferred to the Account No. 30832024002 of M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd. From 08.10.2009 onwards to upto 30.10.2009 he had used the signed blank cheques, RTGS forms and other relevant documents for transferring Rs.3.44 crore to the Axis Bank account of M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd. He has also utilized the accounts of the company for transferring Rs.1,85,64,000/- to M/s. Modh Patni Co-op Credit Society, Rs.1,00,00,000/- to M/s. Nandlal Memorial and Rs.11,28,000/- to M/s. Jagdamba Yarns, which were fictitious companies created by him for his benefit. The SBI had on its own acted when the balance was Rs.3,67,78,250/- and stopped further debits. Thus SBI was cheated to the extent of Rs.8.44 Crore.

4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Akash Singh for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani appearing for the respondent No. 2 and learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya for respondent - State.

4.1 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error, both in law as well as on facts. It is contended that an opportunity as contemplated under the provisions of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) ought to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

have been provided to the applicant and for that purpose he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2025 (INSC) 760.

4.2 The learned advocate for the applicant further relied upon a decision in M. E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru, reported in 2020 LawSuit(SC) 12 to contend that the documents relied upon by the applicant ought to have been considered by the learned trial Court.

4.3 The learned advocate for the applicant has also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar, reported in 2008 LawSuit(SC) 2500 to submit that no prima facie case is made out against the present applicant for the alleged offence.

4.4 Last but not the least, the learned advocate for the applicant has also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Pavan Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2023) 15 SCC 91, with regard to his contentions on PMLA, 2002 and the proceeds of crime.

4.5 The learned advocate for the applicant further submits that no suspicion against the present accused is surfacing on record from the Charge sheet papers. It is contended that no

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

knowledge can be attributed to the present applicant regarding the alleged tainted money have been received by accused No. 1 arising from the scheduled offences, more particularly, when the applicant had Rs.9,00,000/- dues from accused No. 1, which were duly reported by him. It is further submitted that the only role attributed to the present applicant is that of handing over the rest of the amount to accused No. 6 at the instance of accused No. 1.

4.6 The learned advocate for the applicant further drew the attention to exh. 211 placed before the learned trial Court to point out that the cheques in question were issued against the dues which were due from accused No. 1 and though the cheques were issued, they came to be returned. Learned advocate for the applicant further submits that even if the statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 are considered, they do not fall within the category of layering and no connivance can be attributed to the present applicant. It is, thus, contended that the learned trial Court has failed to consider these crucial aspects and in doing so, committed a grave error in rejecting the discharge application, exh. 91. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present revision application be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2, Mr. Rajesh Kanani submits that scope of revision application is limited and it does not permit reappreciation of evidence,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

coupled with the fact that the trial Court cannot look into the documents relied upon by the accused while deciding an application for discharge and has vehemently opposed the present application. Drawing attention of this Court towards the reasoning part of the impugned order, he contended that no error of law apparent on the face of the record has been committed by the leanred trial Court, more particularly, when grave suspicion is surfacing on record from the complaint itself submitted before the concerned jurisdictional Court in the year 2015, and that the order taking cognizance and framing charges came to be challenged in the year 2025. It is pointed out that the discharge application was preferred after three years of the taking of cognizance and as thus, he prayed to reject the present application.

6. Heard, learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record of the case.

6.1 At the outset, it would be apt to refer to the scope of interference in the revision application arising out of an order on discharge application, which is no longer res integra. So far as the law governing the scope of hearing at the time of framing of charge is concerned, in the case of K. H. Kamaladini v. State, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1176, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 has held as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

"9. In this case, the appellant sought discharge. The prayer for discharge was rejected by the Special Court. Therefore, a revision application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC was preferred by the Appellant. As far as the scope of hearing at the time of framing of charge is concerned, the law is well settled. Firstly, at this stage, the Court can examined only the documents forming part of the charge sheet and no other material can be considered.

Secondly, after considering the material on record, the Court has to decide whether or not there exists a sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial against the Appellant. Thirdly, at this stage, the Court cannot shift the evidence forming a part of the charge sheet with a view to separating the grain from the chaff. Fourthly, if the Court is of the view that the evidence without cross examination or rebuttal shows that the accused has not permitted any offence, then an order of discharge must be passed. Lastly, if the evidence adduced before the Court, creates a grave suspicion against the accused will not discharge the accused."

7. Tested on the anvil of the aforestated principles, it becomes clear that even if the statements of the accused are taken at face value, the receipt of an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and the remaining amount allegedly received from accused No. 1 remains unexplained. This aspect assumes significance when the order under challenge is taken into consideration, more particularly, paragraph 8 on Page 58 sub-para 8.1 onwards. It is evident that the learned trial Court considered the factum of statements of the present accused recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 which would reveal that the applicant has received sum of Rs.30,00,000/- from M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd. It is the case of the applicant that the amount was received in connection with an alleged land deal between accused No. 1, the Director of M/s. Sai

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd, namely, Mr. Dinesh Karamsibhai Jalalpara with accused No. 6 - Vikram Jayantilal Choksi. That, out of the said amount, the applicant alleged to have transferted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to accused No. 6 on 15.10.2009 and remaining Rs.25,00,000/- was utilized by investing Rs.10,00,000/- with M/s. Roongta Rising Stock Pvt. Ltd. and a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- was paid in cash to accused No. 6, at the behest of accused No. 1 and remaining balance amount of Rs.3,43,613/- has remained as balance in the account of present applicant.

7.1 Learned trial Judge has further recorded the fact upon perusal of the statement of accused No. 6 - Vikram Jayantilal Choksi that it does not mention anything about the land deal nor anything has been informed with regard to land deal so as to prima facie substantiate the contention that the amounts received were towards such alleged transactions, more particularly, the amount which the applicant has received from accused No. 3 - M/s. Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd., has been invested with M/s. Roongta Rising Stock Pvt. Ltd.

8. So far as decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant in Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra) so as to submit that an opportunity as contemplated under the provisions of Section 223 of the BNSS ought to have been provided to the applicant is concerned, it is required to be noted that the complaint was filed way back in 2015 and the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

learned Judge has taken cognizance on 27.03.2015 and the summons were made returnable on 29.04.2015. Under the circumstances when BNSS came into force with effect from 1 st July 2024, there is no question of hearing the present accused in accordance with the provisions of Section 223 of the BNSS.

8.1 So far as decision in M. E. Shivalingamurthy (supra), relied on by the learned advocate for the applicant is concerned, in paragraphs 29 to 31, it is held thus:

"29. It is not open to the accused to rely on material by way of defence and persuade the court to discharge him.

30. However, what is the meaning of the expression "materials on the basis of which grave suspicion is aroused in the mind of the court's", which is not explained away? Can the accused explain away the material only with reference to the materials produced by the prosecution? Can the accused rely upon material which he chooses to produce at the stage?

31. In view of the decisions of this Court that the accused can only rely on the materials which are produced by the prosecution, it must be understood that the grave suspicion, if it is established on the materials, should be explained away only in terms of the materials made available by the prosecution. No doubt, the accused may appeal to the broad probabilities to the case to persuade the court to discharge him."

8.1.1 Thus, from the referred judgment, it cannot be said that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the documents relied upon by the applicant ought to have been considered by the trial Court while deciding an application for discharge.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

8.2 The learned advocate for the applicant has also placed reliance on a decision in Rukmini Narvekar (supra) so to submit that no prima facie case is made out against the present applicant for the alleged offence, is concerned, least is to be said that each case has to be evaluated on its own facts and relevant law and in a rare case, as observed by in the said judgment, the Court can also look into the material produced by the defence so as to do substantial justice, if such material convincingly establishes that the whole prosecution version is totally absurd, preposterous or concocted, which aspect is absent in the instant case.

8.3 So far as decision in Pavan Dibbur (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court, in paragraph 18 thereof has specifically observed that:

"18......However, an accused in PMLA case who comes into the picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled offence. Such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA so long as the scheduled offence exists. Thus, the second contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not shown as an accused in the Charge-sheet filed in the scheduled offences deserves to be rejected."

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Megh Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3184, observed that:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

"Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make world of difference between conclusions in two cases or between two accused in the same case. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another, is not enough because a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. It is more pronounced in criminal cases where the backbone of adjudication is fact based."

9.1 Viewed in the background of the afore-stated principles, the judgments relied on by the learned advocate for the applicant, are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand since the criminal cases are adjudicated based on facts of each case, more particularly, as observed by the trial Court to which, this Court also concurs and if the material placed on record goes unrebutted, the complicity of the applicant clearly surfaces on record of the case as put forth by the prosecution and on reading of the Charge-sheet papers. Thus, a strong suspicion against the accused surfaces on record from the papers of Charge-sheet and if such allegation goes unrebutted, under the circumstances, it cannot be said that rejection of the application by the trial Court is erroneous or there is palpable error on the face of record which requires interference at the hands of this Court.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case is made out for interference in the present revision application at the hands of this Court. The application, therefore, fails and is rejected accordingly, confirming the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal District and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

Sessions Judge and Designated Special Judge (PMLA), Ahmedabad (Rural), below exh. 91 in PMLA Case No. 2 of 2015.

10.1 It goes without saying that trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law and its own merits without being influenced by the observations made herein which are made only for the limited purpose of deciding the present revision application.

(P. M. RAVAL, J) MOHD SAIF ULLAH