SHAILESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.RA/1167/2023                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
            SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1167 of 2023

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting          Yes    No
                                                √
==========================================================
               SHAILESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATEL
                              Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MEDHA N PANDYA(6171) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA S PATEL(12087) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SURESH B BHATT(5669) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,5,6,7,8,9
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 06/04/2026
                                JUDGMENT

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on
behalf of respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr. Aditya Patel for and
on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned advocate Mr. Suresh Bhatt
for respondent Nos.3 to 9. With the consent of learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties, present application is taken up
for Bnal hearing.

[2.0] By way of present revision application under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
“CrPC”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the
order dated 08.03.2023 passed below Exh.1 in P.H. No.1/2023 by the



                                    Page 1 of 6
  R/CR.RA/1167/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad upon the
complaint made by the applicant, whereby the learned Sessions Judge
has been pleased to dismiss the complaint Bled against respondent
Nos.2 to 9.

[3.0] It appears that the present applicant Bled a private complaint
being P.H. No.1/2023 against respondent Nos.2 to 9 herein for the
oIence under Sections 164, 165 and 120(A) of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short “IPC”) and sections 7, 7(A), 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC Act”) which came to
be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge at the stage of preliminary
hearing. Hence, present revision application is Bled.

[4.0] Learned advocate Ms. Medha Pandya appearing for the
applicant has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has
committed an error in dismissing the complaint though prima facie
oIence is made out. In the complaint it was alleged that accused
persons have indulged in criminal activity and in collusion of each
other they have cheated the government and siphoned oI an amount
of Rs.50 Crore and have indulged in corrupt practice and have failed to
provide the documents of said scam though information was sought
for under the Right to Information Act and though an appeal under
the provisions of RTI Act was preferred, no any information is
provided. Being aggrieved and dissatisBed with the order of
Commission, the applicant preferred an appeal and though order was
passed, till date they have failed to comply with the same. She has
further submitted that without sanctioning any proposal from the
government under the composite package Nos.79, 81 and 95, over and
above the amount of tender, Rs.65 lakh in excess has been paid by
preparing forged order and tender and said excess amount of Rs.65



                                Page 2 of 6
  R/CR.RA/1167/2023                            JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




lakh has been paid to the agency of Manharbhai Patel indulging in
corrupt practice and thus the respondent Nos.2 to 9 herein have
committed an oIence. She has further stated that it is alleged that
one employee is unable to perform his duty and though he remained
absent, he is drawing salary from government and though he was
informed about the illegality, irregularity and corrupt practice in
collusion of each other, they have committed the oIence and in this
regard, the complaint is Bled which was dismissed and therefore, she
has requested to allow the revision application and direct the learned
Sessions Judge to restore the complaint and to take cognizance of the
oIence.

[5.0] Learned APP appearing for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat
and learned advocates Mr. Aditya Patel for respondent No.2 and Mr.
Suresh Bhatt for respondent Nos.3 to 9 have opposed the present
application mainly on the ground that no sanction has been sought for
which is mandatory. Even otherwise, no any alleged oIence is made
out as allegations of complainant itself are in question as the
complainant himself is not having any personal knowledge or interest.
It is further submitted that if we peruse the complaint, it is clearly
stated that on the basis of one anonymous letter he has received, he
has Bled the complaint. It is further submitted that the complainant
has Bled the impugned complaint to keep the government employees
under Damocles’ Sword on their neck. Hence, they have requested to
dismiss the present revision application.

[6.0] Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and going through the complaint, prima facie, it appears that
applicant having no personal knowledge about the allegations made in
the complaint and based on one anonymous letter received by him, he



                                Page 3 of 6
  R/CR.RA/1167/2023                               JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




has accepted the contents of said letter as gospel truth and Bled the
complaint.

[6.1] Further, when a query was posed to the learned advocate for
the applicant to show or point out as to how the case falls under the
provisions of the PC Act, learned advocate for the applicant failed to
reply to the said query and insisted to take cognizance for the oIence
under Sections 164 and 165 of the IPC. It is needless to say that
provisions of Sections 161 to 165A of the IPC are repealed and PC Act
is enacted subsequent to that. Hence, question does not arise to Ble
any complaint under Sections 164 or 165 of the IPC. So far as sections
7, 7(A), 8, 9 and 11 of the PC Act are concerned, no any allegations are
levelled qua demand of illegal gratiBcation or no bribe has been asked
for. No any case or allegation which reveals that the respondents have
attempted or obtained from any person any undue advantage and
they have performed their public duty improperly or dishonestly.
Even, no any allegation of abetment is there. Merely based on
apprehension, no any oIence could have been registered or
investigated. Further, respondents are public servants and no any iota
of evidence as regards allegation of criminal misconduct by the public
servants. Even if we accept the allegations as it is then also same
amounts to irregularity or misappropriation of government funds.
Even if for the sake of argument such contention is accepted without
admitting, separate government mechanism and separate institutional
mechanism is set up by the government and if alleged oIence or any
such irregularity in the tender process or any excess amount payment
is there, even though under the audit and other government
procedures are there to trace out such irregularity, which the
complainant has brought to the notice of government. Hence, now it
is for the government to take call if alleged or so-called irregularity or


                                 Page 4 of 6
   R/CR.RA/1167/2023                               JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




oIenec is committed by the respondents.

[6.2] Lastly, so far as allegation of PC Act is concerned, after
enactment of PC Act, section 17(A) is introduced and as per Section
17A, for conducting any inquiry or investigation of the oIence related
to PC Act against the public servant in discharge of his oOcial function
or duty, permission is required. Hence, considering bar under Section
17A of the PC and relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. [(2013)
10 SCC 705], learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in
dismissing the complaint.


[6.3] Further, 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 Sessions Judge, it appears that learned Judge
has already appreciated the facts and Bnding of fact not to be upset
unless it is found perverse and Bnding 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
Sessions Judge and proper reasons and Bnding based on evidence led
has been given and hence also, no interference at the hands of this
Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.

[6.4] It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of
Chhatisgarh reported in (2022)8 SCC 204 wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that section 397/401 CrPC vests jurisdiction for


                                 Page 5 of 6
    R/CR.RA/1167/2023                                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any Bnding, sentence or order, recorded or
passed, 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 Bndings. It is a settled legal proposition that if the Courts below
have recorded the Bnding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of
evidence by the Court does not arise unless it is found to be totally
perverse.

[7.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision application
fails and stands dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged.


                                                                                         Sd/-
                                                                       (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)


Ajay
 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/04/2026 17:30:52




                                                    Page 6 of 6