Holding

A revision cannot be entertained where the charge‑sheet evidence creates a grave suspicion against the accused, and the trial court’s refusal to discharge was proper.

Summary

The applicant, Satyanarayan Tarachand Jaju, filed a revision under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the trial court’s refusal to discharge him in a PMLA case alleging his involvement in a bank‑fraud and money‑laundering scheme. The prosecution case alleged that a senior SBI official, Manoj Kumar Gupta, colluded with chartered accountants and a private firm to create fictitious accounts, forge documents and divert over ₹846 lakh from the State Bank of India, constituting offences under the IPC, PC Act and PMLA. The applicant argued that the trial court erred by not granting him an opportunity under Section 223 of the BNSS and by ignoring precedents that allow consideration of defence material to dispel grave suspicion. The court examined the scope of revision under Section 401/397 CrPC, noting that at the charge‑framing stage only the charge‑sheet material may be considered and that grave suspicion arising from the prosecution’s evidence precludes discharge. Relying on Supreme Court authority, the court held that the material on record created sufficient suspicion against the applicant and that the trial court’s decision was not erroneous. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, affirming the trial court’s order.

Issues considered

The trial court erred in refusing to grant the applicant discharge under Section 223 of the BNSS.
Whether the court may consider defence‑produced documents at the charge‑framing stage for a discharge application.
Whether the material on record raises a grave suspicion sufficient to deny discharge.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 223, s. 438, s. 442
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173, s. 397, s. 401
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 420, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002s. 3, s. 4

Subjects

money launderingPMLAdischarge applicationrevisiongrave suspicionBNSSbank fraudsection 223section 401 CrPCscheduled offence

Judgment

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

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).

Page 1 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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

Page 2 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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

Page 3 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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.

Page 4 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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

Page 5 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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.

Page 6 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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

Page 7 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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,

Page 8 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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

Page 9 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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

Page 10 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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,

Page 11 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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:

Page 12 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

“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

Page 13 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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

Page 14 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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.

Page 15 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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:

Page 16 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

“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

Page 17 of 18
R/CR.RA/2168/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026

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

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/01/2026 11:48:11

Page 18 of 18