SANJAYAKUMAR @ PETER GANGARAM PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/842/2026                             JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
             SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 842 of 2026


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

==========================================================
             Approved for Reporting              Yes          No
                                                  √
==========================================================
                 SANJAYAKUMAR @ PETER GANGARAM PATEL
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                             Date : 24/04/2026

                               JUDGMENT


1.       By way of this application under Section 438 read with Section

         442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the

         applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order

         dated 24.2.2026 passed below Exh.34 by the learned 3 rd

         Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana at Visnagar in Sessions

         Case no. 9 of 2021 and to discharge the applicant.


2.       The direction given in Criminal Misc. Application no.18312 of

         2020 with Criminal Misc. Application no. 2772 of 2021 dated


                                 Page 1 of 7
     R/CR.RA/842/2026                            JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




         4.8.2025 was brought to the notice of this Court, where it was

         specifically directed to the learned Trial Court to conduct the

         hearing under Sections 226 and 227 of the Code of Criminal

         Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) by

         following the judgment in the case of Manishaben Gujjugiri

         Goswami v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 (1) GLR 133 :

         2021 (2) GLR 419.


3.       Learned advocate Mr. Rahul Dholakia for the applicant has

         produced Rojnama of the proceedings of Sessions Case no. 9

         of 2021 as called for by this Court.


4.       It appears that the learned Trial Court Judge has not given

         any thoughtful consideration to the order passed on 4.8.2025.

         It is very unfortunate that the Trial Court Judges without even

         following the process under Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. are

         dealing with the trial. Section 226 mandates the Public

         Prosecutor to open the case for the prosecution by describing

         the charges to be brought against the accused and stating by

         what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused.


5.       It is at this stage the accused would have the knowledge of

         the cases to be tried against him, where at this stage, under

         Section 226 Cr.P.C., the Public Prosecutor would be producing



                                  Page 2 of 7
     R/CR.RA/842/2026                            JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




         the list of the documents on which he places reliance to prove

         the guilt of the accused. This Court vide judgment dated

         11.6.2024 passed in Criminal Revision Application no. 1535 of

         2019 had directed the Public Prosecutor of all the Trial Courts

         to follow the judgment in the case of    Manishaben Gujjugiri

         Goswami (supra).


6.       It appears that since long the Trial Courts are directed to

         follow the provision under Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. (Section

         249 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), inspite

         of that, there has been no progress made by the Trial Courts

         and at the same time, it is required to be observed that the

         Public Prosecutors in the Trial Courts are not even vigilant to

         follow the mandate under Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. where it

         is obligatory duty on the part of the Public Prosecutor to open

         the case and place everything on record proposing the

         evidence to be produced to prove the guilt of the accused.


7.       Here a specific mention is required to be made about the

         provision under Sections 249 and 250 of the Bharatiya

         Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as

         “BNSS”), which is reproduced hereunder:-


                 “249. Opening case for prosecution.— When
                 the accused appears or is brought before the


                                  Page 3 of 7
     R/CR.RA/842/2026                              JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




                 Court, in pursuance of a commitment of the
                 case under section 232, or under any other law
                 for the time being in force, the prosecutor shall
                 open his case by describing the charge brought
                 against the accused and stating by what
                 evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the
                 accused.

                 250. Discharge.—

                 (1) The accused may prefer an application
                 for discharge within a period of sixty days from
                 the date of commitment of the case under
                 section 232.”

                 (2) If, upon consideration of the record of
                 the case and the documents submitted
                 therewith, and after hearing the submissions of
                 the accused and the prosecution in this behalf,
                 the Judge considers that there is not sufficient
                 ground for proceeding against the accused, he
                 shall discharge the accused and record his
                 reasons for so doing.”


8.       As provided under Section 249 of the BNSS, after the accused

         appears or is brought before the Court after committal of the

         case under Section 232 or under any other law in force, the

         Public Prosecutor has to open his case as provided by

         describing the charge against the accused and stating by what

         evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. This

         provision under the BNSS is analogous to that of Section 226

         of the Cr.P.C..


9.       The change which is remarkable is under Section 250 of the

         Cr.P.C., where earlier it was Section 227 Cr.P.C. reproduced


                                    Page 4 of 7
  R/CR.RA/842/2026                             JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




      hereinunder to have a comparable reading.


              “227. Discharge.— If, upon consideration of
              the record of the case and the documents
              submitted therewith, and after hearing the
              submissions    of   the    accused   and    the
              prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers
              that there is not sufficient ground for
              proceeding against the accused, he shall
              discharge the accused and record his reasons
              for so doing.”


10.   While under Section 250 of BNSS, the restriction by way of

      time period has been laid down, thus, the accused would be in

      a position to prefer an application for discharge within a

      period of 60 days from the date of commitment of the case

      under Section 232. The limitation of 60 days in preferring the

      discharge application would be in consonance with the

      provision of Section 249 of BNSS, when the case of the

      accused is committed under Section 232 and on that day, the

      Public Prosecutor has to follow the provision under Section

      249, which thereafter would permit the accused to prefer

      discharge application within a period of 60 days. Thus, it

      becomes very clear that every Sessions Court who deal with

      the trial under Chapter XIX of BNSS therefore would have to

      record about the proceedings followed under Section 249, as

      it is only after that date of commitment of case under Section

      232 and the procedure under Section 249 of BNSS, the


                                Page 5 of 7
  R/CR.RA/842/2026                            JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




      limitation of 60 days in filing the discharge application would

      initiate. The failure on the part of the Sessions Judge or the

      Public Prosecutor of non-compliance of Section 249 of BNSS

      would prejudice the rights of the accused as well as would

      affect the proceedings mandated under Chapter XIX of the

      BNSS.


11.   Section 251(1)(b) of the BNSS also lays down time limit for

      the Sessions Court to frame in writing the charge against the

      accused within a period of 60 days from the date of first

      hearing on charge. Thus, now it has been mandated to the

      Public Prosecutor vide Section 249 of BNSS to open the case

      and to describe the charge by stating the evidence, which he

      proposes to lay down in the trial to prove the guilt of the

      accused. The limitation, as laid down under Sections 250 and

      251(1)(b) of the BNSS would give no scope for the Public

      Prosecutor or even the accused and the learned Judge, but to

      follow the procedure and compliance be noted, which would

      be by way of recording the Rojnama.


12.   Learned advocate Mr. Dholakia has made reference of the

      judgment in the case of Kartikbhai Jashubhai Patel v. State of

      Gujarat, rendered in Criminal Revision Application no. 2627 of

      2025 and allied matters, where this issue was dealt with and


                              Page 6 of 7
      R/CR.RA/842/2026                                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




           learned advocate Mr. Dholakia has submitted that the Court

           had concluded about the right of the accused to seek

           condonation of delay in following terms:-

                     “33. For the foregoing reasons, this Court
                     holds:

                     (I)    An accused may prefer an application for
                     discharge within sixty day period ordinarily,
                     but, beyond 60 days, does not extinguish his
                     right to seek discharge where delay is
                     satisfactorily explained.

                     (ii)  The committal proceedings are not
                     rendered    void    merely   because    certain
                     additional    documents       were     supplied
                     subsequently; however, fairness requires that
                     discharge applications be considered only after
                     complete supply of materials relied upon by the
                     prosecution.

                     (iii) The learned Sessions Judge erred in
                     refusing to condone the delay and in entering
                     into the merits at the stage of condonation.”

 13.       In the result, the present application is allowed and the order

           dated 24.2.2026 passed below Exh.34 by the learned 3 rd

           Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana at Visnagar in Sessions

           Case no. 9 of 2021 is quashed and set aside. The learned

           Sessions Court is ordered to follow the provision under

           Section 226 of Cr.P.C.


 14.       Registry to circulate this order in all the Sessions Courts.



                                                                                                 (GITA GOPI,J)
           Maulik

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MAULIK RAJESH PANDYA(HC00205), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 29/04/2026 10:56:53

                                                      Page 7 of 7