[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Ajeetkumar S/O Ram Prabesh Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 20 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 684 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
AJEETKUMAR S/O RAM PRABESH SINGH
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MS TRIVEDI(939) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 20/03/2026
JUDGMENT
RULE. Learned advocate Mr. R.C. Kodekar waives service
of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent. With the
consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, present application is taken up for final hearing today.
[1.0] Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") has been preferred by the
applicant herein requesting to quash and set aside the order
dated 09.01.2023 passed below Exh.17, by the learned Special
Judge, CBI Court No.7, Ahmedabad in Special CBI Case No.5 of
2021, whereby the learned Judge rejected the discharge
application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of the CrPC.
[2.0] The brief facts of the case are as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
[2.1] A regular case being R.C. No.0292019A0009 dated 01/07/2019
for the offences under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short "IPC") and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(b) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "PC Act") came to
be registered with CBI, Gandhinagar and after carrying out
investigation, the Police Officer of C.B.I. filed the charge-sheet
against three accused under the above referred provisions of
law, amongst which Accused Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife
and present applicant is shown as accused No.3, who is cousin of
accused No.1. It is the case of the CBI that the accused No.1 and
accused No.2 acquired and owned disproportionate assets
during the check period (from 01/01/2010 to 09/07/2019) as
compared to all their known sources of income and the
disproportionate assets so calculated are about 124.09% of the
total of all known sources of income of the present applicant
and therefore, the present applicant came to be charge-sheeted
for the aforesaid offences, which culminated into Special CBI
Case No.5/2021.
[2.2] That, the applicant herein - original accused No.3 preferred an
application Exh.17 under Section 227 of the CrPC requesting to
discharge him from the charges levelled against him. The
learned Special Judge vide the impugned order rejected the said
application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the applicant has
preferred the present revision application.
[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi appearing for the applicant has
submitted that the there is no evidence even prima facie to
frame charge under the sections alleged in the charge sheet.
Further, even if the documents and prerecorded statements of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
witnesses are considered, there is not an iota of evidence
against the present applicant which connects the present
applicant with the alleged offence of abetment of acquiring and
possessing assets disproportionate to the known sources of
legal income by co-accused Nos.1 and 2. He has further
submitted that neither a single witness has stated anything
against or explained the complicity of the present applicant nor
a single witness has explained any role played by accused No.3
in this case. Further, there is no evidence in the entire charge-
sheet to show that the applicant has abetted co-accused Nos.1
and 2 to acquire any disproportionate assets. There is no
evidence in the charge-sheet to show that the present applicant
was in possession of any property of accused nos.1 & 2 at any
point of time. He has also argued that the applicant herein is
innocent and has not committed any offence alleged against
him and not disclosing any offence prima facie as none of the
amount of assets disproportionate to his known sources of
income is correct mathematically, logically and factually. He has
further submitted that there is no grave suspicion sufficient
enough to frame the charge against the applicant accused
though the learned Judge has rejected the application seeking
discharge. Therefore, he has requested to allow the present
application.
[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. R.C. Kodekar appearing on behalf of the
respondent - CBI has vehemently opposed the present
application by submitting that before the learned Special Judge,
the respondent authority had filed its reply at Exh.24 wherein it
has been contended that the co-accused No.1 viz. Subhash
Kumar, Superintendent, CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax),
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
Vadodara was caught red handed by CBI, ACB, Gandhinagar on
30/05/2018 in RC 0292018A0008 for demanding and accepting
Rs. 3 lakh illegal gratification from the co-accused. RC
0292019A0009 was registered at CBI ACB. Gandhinagar on
01/07/2019 on the basis of a written complaint of the
Investigating Officer in RC 0292018A0008 against Subhash
Kumar (A-1), Superintendent Central Goods and Services Tax
Vadodara for possession of Disproportionate Assets to his know
sources of income. Searches were conducted on 30/05/2018 at
the residential premises of the accused in RC 0292018A0008 for
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and during the
proceedings, Locker No.87, being maintained with Central Bank
of India, Gotri Road Branch, Vadodara, in the names of Rina
Subhash Kumar (A-2) and Subhash Kumar (A-1) was seized. The
said locker No.87 was allotted on 25/06/2014 at Central Bank of
India, Gotri Road Branch, Vadodara to Rina Subhash Kumar (A-2)
and Subhash Kumar (A-1), residing at B/118, Shiv Duplex, Near
Amin Party Plot, Gotri, Vadodara, to be operated by either or
survivor. It is further stated that the said Locker No.87 held in
the names of Rina Subhash Kumar (A-2) and Subhash Kumar (A-
1), being maintained with Central Bank of India, Gotri Road
Branch, Vadodara was operated on 13/05/2019 in the presence
of witnesses and government approved valuer, wherein, huge
cash amount of Rs.28,92,000/- was found and seized apart from
jewelry, which was not seized.
[4.1] He has further submitted that after registration of RC
0292019A0009 at CBI ACB Gandhinagar on 01/07/2019 against
Subhash Kumar (A-1), searches were conducted on 09/07/2019
at six residential and commercial premises of the accused,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
wherein huge cash and incriminating documents were found
and seized. The relevant documents/ articles in RC
0292018A0008 of CBI ACB Gandhinagar were transferred by the
Court in RC 0292019A0009 vide order 24/10/2019 and
corrigendum order dated 27/08/2020. During the investigation
of the case RC 0292019A0009, the relevant documents
pertaining to this case were also seized / collected along with
documents seized in searches in RC 0292018A0008 on
30/05/2018 and RC 0292019A0009 on 09.07 2019 and
statements of the competent witnesses, acquainted with the
facts of this case, were also recorded. It is further submitted
that in view of recovery of huge cash amount of Rs.28,92,000/-
from the locker of the accused Nos.1 and 2, an Affidavit dated
04/05/2018 was given by the present applicant stating therein
that, on 04/05/2018, he had given an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Lakhs) in cash to Rina wife of my paternal
cousin brother Subhash Kumar for purchasing a plot. He has
submitted that the said affidavit dated 04/05/2018 was given by
the present applicant in abetment with accused No.1 to protect
him. He has further submitted that the present applicant is one
of the partners in M/s. Jai Matadi Construction, Jamshedpur
Jharkhand and one of the directors in M/s. Narayan Shakti
Buildcon Pvt Ltd. Jamshedpur Jharkhand involved in the
business of civil work of irrigation related work of State
Government & Railways such as construction of canal, building,
service road etc. He has further submitted that the present
applicant denied to have withdrawn an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- from Current Account No.141205000708 of
partnership firm M/s. Jai Matadi Construction at ICICI Bank Ltd.
Mango branch, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand from 16/12/2017 to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
23/04/2018. However, there are numbers of cash withdrawal
transactions in Current Account No.141205000708 of
partnership firm M/s Jai Matadi Construction at ICICI Bank Ltd.
Mango branch, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand from 11/01/2017 to
23/04/2018 amounting to Rs.75,48,442/- which shows that there
were regular cash withdrawal transactions in the said account.
[4.2] He has further submitted that the stamp papers for the affidavit
dated 04/05/2018 were purchased as Director of M/s. Narayan
Shakti Buildcon Pvt Ltd. Jamshedpur, Jharkhand and the same
was signed by the present applicant as Director of M/s. Narayan
Shakti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. He has further
submitted that as per the Companies Act, taking loan or
borrowing from the partnership / proprietorship firm by the
company is prohibited and therefore, the defence of the
present applicant that he, being the Director of M/s. Narayan
Shakti Buidcon Pvt Ltd. Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, withdrew cash
amount from partnership firm M/s. Jai Matadi Construction is
not acceptable. He has also argued that as per The Companies
Act, if loan amount is exceeding 60% of the paid up capital of
the company, special Resolution is required to be passed prior
to giving loan and the same is required to be uploaded on
website of The Ministry of Corporate Affairs within 30 days.
Further, paid up capital of M/s Narayan Shakti Buildcon Pvt Ltd,
Jamshedpur Jharkhand is Rs.5,00,000/- and as such special
Resolution was required to be passed and uploaded on website
of The Ministry of Corporate Affairs for any amount exceeding
Rs.3,00,000/- but, no such resolution was passed or uploaded.
He has submitted that the present applicant could not produce
any documentary evidence in support of his Affidavit dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
04/05/2018 despite having been given number of notices and
ample opportunities.
[4.3] He has further submitted that though accused No.2 and her
family members as well as present applicant and his firm /
company have number of bank accounts, instead of transferring
an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- through bank, the present
applicant accused defended that he gave Rs.20,00,000/- in cash
to accused No.2 for the same for which he travelled from
Muzaffarpur to Vadodara in unreserved coach of the train. The
present applicant is also alleged to be defending that the
proposed flat was to be purchased for accused No.2 but, the
accused No.2 has stated that she was not aware whether the
proposed flat was to be purchased for the present applicant or
for herself.
[4.4] He has further submitted that during investigation of the case,
roles of accused No.2 and accused No.1 and the present
applicant and private person have also emerged as abettors in
the case of possession of disproportionate assets by accused
No.1. Thus, the applicant has committed grave offence of
abetting the main accused which has been established in the
charge-sheet filed against the applicant. Therefore, he has
requested to dismiss the present application.
[5.0] Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
[5.1] Under Section 227 of the CrPC, after considering the entire
material placed on record and after hearing the arguments of
the accused as well as the prosecution, if the Court reaches to
the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
against the accused and that the commencement of trial will
only waste the valuable time of the Court, the Court may
discharge the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala [(2010) 2 SCC 135] observed
and held that at the time of framing of charge, Court has to
consider the following aspects.
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima
facie case against the accused has been made out. The
test to determine prima facie case would depend upon
the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the Court,
any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there
cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could
form an opinion that the accused might have committed
offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction
the conclusion is required to be proved beyond
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value
of the material on record cannot be gone into but before
framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on
the material placed on record and must be satisfied that
the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC, the
Court is required to evaluate the material and documents
on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value discloses the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it
cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all
that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is
opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of
the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused
and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will
end in conviction or acquittal.
(viii) If the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce
to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted
before it is challenged in cross - examination or rebutted
by the defence evidence, if any, 'cannot show that the
accused committed offence, then, there will be no
sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.
(ix) It is open to the accused to explain away the materials
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
giving rise to the grave suspicion.
(x) There must exist some materials for entertaining the
strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a
charge and refusing to discharge the accused.
[5.2] The above parameters which govern the exercise of jurisdiction
have found expression in several decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The
State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kashyap reported in (2021)11
SCC 191 and State of Karnataka vs. M.R. Hiremath [(2019)7
SCC 515] has observed that at the stage of considering an
application for discharge, the Court must proceed on the
assumption that the material which has been brought on record
by the prosecution should be true and the Court should
evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts
emerging from the material, taken on its face value discloses
the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the
offence. It is also observed that at the stage of discharge, the
probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the
Court is not expected to go deep into the matter. Whereas what
is needed to be considered is whether there is a ground for
convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently,
if the Court thinks that the accused might have committed the
offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative
value, it can frame the charge but for the conviction of the
accused the Court should come to the conclusion that the
accused has committed the offence. Hon'ble Apex Court further
observed in this case that the law does not permit a mini trial at
the stage of discharge. The scope of discharge is very limited. At
the stage of framing of charge, the prosecution merely needs to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
display a prima facie case qua the accused from the material
available on record and trial may thereafter commence.
[5.3] However, at the stage of deciding a discharge application, the
accused may opt to refer to and rely upon sterling quality
evidence to seek his discharge, and if, on the basis of such
unimpeachable record, the Judge is satisfied on the aforesaid
legal precepts that the accused is entitled to an absolute
exoneration from the alleged crime, it is well within the law for
the accused to be discharged the settled position of law is that
the Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift
and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been
made out and whether the materials placed before the Court
discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not
been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the
Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed
with the trial. On other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the
evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some
suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully
justified in discharging the accused.
[6.0] The bone contention of the learned advocate for the applicant
is that learned Special Judge has committed grave error in law
and facts in deciding the role of the present applicant in the
alleged disproportionate assets with the accused Nos.1 and 2
more particularly when he had placed on record documentary
evidence in form of affidavit but with details of bank account
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
and withdrawal of the amount on relevant dates though failed
to consider the said aspect.
[6.1] Going through the complaint and material collected by the
Investigating Officer during the investigation, while taking
cognizance and issuing the process against the accused, the
learned Special Judge, CBI Court has come to conclusion that
the applicant is son of Ram Prabesh Singh, who is cousin of Ram
Bharos Singh, father of accused No.1 and is one of the partners
in M/s. Jai Matadi Construction, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand and
one of the directors in M/s Narayan Shakti Buildcon Pvt Ltd,
Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. The aforesaid firm and company are in
the business of civil work of irrigation related work of State
Government & Railways such as construction of canal, building,
service road etc. It is also found by the learned Special Judge
that in view of recovery of huge cash amount of Rs.28,92,000/-
from the locker of the accused Nos.1 and 2 on 13/05/2019, an
Affidavit dated 04/05/2018 was given by the present applicant
stating therein that, on 04/05/2018, the applicant had given an
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in cash to accused No.2 for purchasing
a plot and that said affidavit dated 04/05/2018, which was
actually purchased on 11/09/2017, was given by the applicant in
abetment with accused No.2 to protect him from the criminal
action against accused No.1.
[6.2] It is also found by the learned Special Judge that the contents of
charge sheet are corroborated and supported by the version of
PW-19 viz. Abhishek Kumar, the Dy. Br. Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Mango Branch, Jamshedur, Jharkhand, who in his statement
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
dated 28/08/2020, has stated that, "......The Current Account
No.141205000708, held in the name of M/s. Jai Matadi
Construction was opened at ICICI Bank Ltd., Mango Branch,
Jamshedpur in the year, 2014 for which copy of KYC documents
such as PAN, Aadhar, Voter ID and Partnership Deed were
submitted. As per the Partnership Deed, applicant and accused
No.2 are partners in the aforesaid partnership firm......" The
transactions showing withdrawal of cash as per statement of
account of Current Account No.141205000708 held in the name
of M/s. Jai Matadi Construction from 01/01/2017 to 30/06/2018
have been elaborately described by this witness in his
statement. On the basis of such statement of account, this
witness has stated that there are regular and frequent
transactions for withdrawal of cash from the aforesaid account
during the above stated period.
[6.3] Even, the PW-100 viz. Ankit Agarwal, who is a Chartered
Accountant & Partner of M/s. DAPM & Co., Jamshedpur,
Jharkhand has stated in his statement that, "............ M/s. Ankit
Kumar Agarwal & Associates is appointed as Statutory Auditor of
M/s Narayan Shakti Buildcon Pvt Ltd, Priti Apartment, 3rd Floor,
No. 17, Post Office Road, Mango, Jamshedpur, Purbi Singhbhum,
Jharkhand 831012, whose directors are present applicant and
accused No.2. The said witness has further stated that he had
carried out statutory audit of M/s Narayan Shakti Buildcon Pvt
Ltd, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand for the year 2016-2017 and that he
was appointed as statutory auditor for the year 2017-18 &
onwards but, the required data such as books of company were
not provided by the company and as such the same could not be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
audit from the 2017-2018 and onwards and as per the statutory
provision, the statutory audit of the company should have been
completed and uploaded on the website of Ministry of Corporate
Affairs latest by 30/10/2018 for the financial year 2017-2018 and
latest by 30/10/2018 for the financial year 2018-19 but, the same
have not been uploaded till date." The said witness has further
stated on being asked as to whether the resolution is required
to be passed by the company and to be uploaded on website of
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs within 30 days for the amount
taken on loan by the company from the partnership firm, it is
stated that taking loan or borrowing from the
partnership/proprietorship firm by the company is prohibited as
per The Companies Act and as such question of passing the
resolution doesn't arise. The said witness has further stated
that taking loan from the partnership / proprietorship firm
by the company is clear violation of The Companies Act.
[6.4] Further, perusing the record, it appears that the I.O. has rightly
not believed the defense raised by the present applicant that
the said amount of Rs.20 lakhs was withdrawn from the current
account of his partnership firm M/s. Jai Matadi Construction
maintained with the ICICI Bank, Jamshedpur Branch, Jharkhand
from 16/12/2017 to 23/04/2018. In fact, the statement of the
said period shows that there were regular cash withdrawal
transactions to the tune of Rs.75,48,442/-. Further, the learned
Special Judge has considered document D-18 i.e. affidavit
04/05/2018 sworn by the present applicant which pertains to
huge cash recovery of Rs.28,92,200/- made on 03/05/2019 from
the locker of accused Nos.1 and 2. The said document is self-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
explanatory and shows that the present applicant in abetment
with accused No.1, with a view to protect accused No.1, from
criminal action and legal consequences, fabricated a false and
bogus back dated affidavit with malafide intention and only
with a view to facilitate accused No.1.
[6.5] Further, if the statements of PW-19 and PW-100 recorded by
the investigating agency attached with the charge-sheet as well
as the documentary evidence produced on record are
considered, then, it clearly appears that the offences alleged are
made out against the present applicant and the evidence is
incriminating against him and there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the present applicant accused. There is also
sufficient ground to presume that the applicant has committed
the offence of abetment alleged against him in the charge-
sheet. All the material is capable and sufficient of being
transformed into evidence at the stage of trial.
[6.6] Thus, the applicant with an open eye abetted an offence under
Section 107 of IPC and such act amounts to abetment and falls
under Section 108 read with section 109 of the IPC and charge-
sheet is also filed under Section 109 of the IPC and charge is yet
to be framed. Hence, the learned Special Judge in view of
foregoing discussion, considering overall evidence collected
during the investigation, rightly come to the conclusion that
there appears to be sufficient and enough prima facie evidence
which constitute a prima facie case against the present
applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
[6.7] Further, section 12 of the PC Act provides punishment for
'abetment', which reads as under:
"12. Punishment for abetment of offences. - Whoever abets any offence
punishable under this Act, whether or not that offence is committed in
consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which shall be not less than three years, but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
The public trust in the governmental institution depends
heavily on the integrity of public servant and mechanism
provided under the PC Act to deter the corruption. The
intention of legislation is aimed to ensure honest conduct by
public officials and transparency in the public administration
which typically covers direct commission of offence under the
PC Act such as to accept bribe, misuse of public office or
amassing disproportionate assets and equally aimed section 12
of the PC Act which deals with the punishment for abetment of
such offences. This section recognizes that corruption often
does not occur in isolation. The individuals who encourage,
assist, influence or facilitate the commission of corruption
related offences can also be held liable and section 12 of the PC
Act ensures that such abettors do not escape responsibility
simply because they do not personally receive any unlawful
advantage or abuse of public office or he is not holding the
public office. The provision reads to the effect that whoever
abets any offence punishable under this Act whether or not that
offence is committed in consequence of such abetment.
Meaning of word "abetment" is defined under Section 12 of the
PC Act. To understand section 12 fully, it is aimed to examine
the legal meaning of abetment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
[6.8] Under general criminal law in India, principles are provided
under the IPC. Section 107 defines "abetment" of things.
Abetment includes to instigate a person to commit an offence
engaging in conspiracy to commit an offence intentionally,
aiding the commission of offence through acts and illegal
omission or facilitation which encourage the abetment to assist
in concealment of corrupt act or support unlawful gain and such
a person can be held liable for abetment. Herein, present
applicant - accused has facilitated the accused Nos.1 and 2 to
conceal the income gained due to unknown source of income
who have tried to siphon and conceal by creating ante-dated
affidavit also and for that ample evidence is collected by the
investigating agency and charge-sheet is filed against the
present applicant - accused which clearly reveals the abetment
as present applicant is involved as a facilitator to accused Nos.1
and 2 who had operated behind the scene and encouraged the
accumulation of disproportionate assets by accused Nos.1 and 2
and helped them by unlawful means to conceal unlawful wealth
which clearly reflects his intention and active participation in the
commission of offence and accused has created an opportunity
providing resources enabling the public servant - accused No.1
to conceal unlawful wealth. Hence, in aid of section 109 of the
IPC, charge-sheet is filed and in case of acquisition of
disproportionate assets, even a non-public servant can be
convicted or proceeded with for abetment of corruption in aid
of section section 109 of the IPC, in case of section 13(1)(e) of
the PC Act. In this regard, reference is required to be made to
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.
Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs. State Represented by the Inspector
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
of Police Spe / CBI / ACB / Chennai reported in AIR 2025 SC
3007 as well as in the case of P. Nallammal & Anr. vs. State,
represented by Inspector of Police reported in (1999) 6 SCC
559. Hence, prima facie case is made out against the present
applicant - accused for framing the charge and perusing the
record, it appears that learned Special Judge has not committed
any error in dismissing the discharge application filed by the
present applicant - accused since applicant - accused has
facilitated the accused No.1 in concealment of unlawful wealth
and section 12 of the PC Act is a cornerstone provision in
promoting the transparency and honest governance across the
country and as investigating agency has relied on documents
and affidavit and in aid of section 109 of the IPC, charge-sheet is
filed. Hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this
Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
[7.0] In view of above, whether the defence raised by the present
applicant is bonafide or not, all these aspects are required to be
considered at the time of full-fledged trial as the learned Special
Judge is satisfied that prima facie case is made out and there is
sufficient material and evidence and ground for framing of
charge and the Court has not gone into the merits of the case
and considered on the basis of material on record that the
accused is likely to be convicted or not. Hence, the order passed
by the learned Special Judge does not call for any interference
as at the time of framing of the charge, Court has not to weigh
evidence and come to conclusion as to whether or not there is a
possibility of recording conviction. Court has to only see as to
whether there is sufficient ground or material against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
accused based on which accused may be put to trial.
[8.0] In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of P. Vijayan (Supra), Ashok Kashyap (Supra) and M.R.
Hiremath (Supra), and in view of the fact that on the basis of all
the material on record, the learned Special Judge has
satisfactorily come to conclusion that the applicant - accused
might have committed an offence and sufficient material is
available to put the applicant - accused on trial.
[9.0] It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction can be
exercised where there is a palpable error or non-compliance
with the provision of law and where decision is completely
erroneous and where the judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily. Herein, if we examine the reasons assigned by the
learned Special Judge, it appears that learned Special Judge has
already appreciated the facts and finding of fact not to be upset
unless it is found perverse and finding of fact not to be
substituted keeping in mind the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr.
reported in (2012)9 SCC 460 as no perversity is found in the
reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge. The learned
Special Judge has assigned well-founded reasons while rejecting
the application under Section 227 of the CrPC and such findings
are based on evidence led before it and hence also, no
interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction is required.
[9.1] It would also be appropriate to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/684/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2022)8 SCC 204 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that section 397/401 CrPC vests
jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to
the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding and as to the
regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object
of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction of law. There has to be well-founded error which is
to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well
settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court
does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the
case to reverse those findings. It is a settled legal proposition
that if the Court below recorded the finding of fact, the
question of re-appreciation of evidence by the revisional Court
does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse.
[10.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present criminal revision
application stands dismissed. Resultantly, the impugned order
dated 09.01.2023 passed below Exh.17, by the learned Special
Judge, CBI Court No.7, Ahmedabad in Special CBI Case No.5 of
2021 is hereby confirmed. As the offence is registered way back
in the year 2019, learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Ahmedabad
is directed to expedite the trial preferably within a period of
one year. Rule is hereby discharged.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
