R/CR.RA/1205/2017 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1205 of 2017 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR EXTENSION OF INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1205 of 2017 ========================================================== HITENDRA JINABHAI BHATT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MS MOHINI J BHAVSAR(3071) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HK PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 18/09/2025 ORAL ORDER ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR EXTENSION OF INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 OF 2025: Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and considering the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. The interim relief granted by the co-ordinate Bench is extended till today. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1205 of 2017 By way preferring the present revision application, the petitioner challenges the order passed by learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge And Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Surat dated 24/11/2017 below Exhibit-4 in Criminal Case No. 6534 of 2002 seeking to discharge from the charges levelled against him. 2. The short facts of the case are that an FIR came to be registered by R/CR.RA/1205/2017 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 Shri. Prem Chhelbihari Agrawal before Rander Police Station, Surat being Ist CR No. 260 of 2001 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 408, 467, 468, 472, 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the Complainant that he is running the business under the name and style of 'The Supreme Crane Hiring Co. and he has provided crane on rent to L & T company since one and half years at Surat for which L & T company paid rent by issuing cheque in the name of 'The Supreme Crane Hiring Co. It is stated in the F.I.R that Mr.Santoshkumar Raghunath Pandey (accused no.1) was driver of the Crane rented to L & T Company by the Complainant. 2.1 It is further stated in the FIR that the Complainant has outstanding payment to be received from L & T company for the period 01.11.2000 to 31.03.2001. and for collection of same the Complainant sent his supervisor on 26.09.2001 to L & T company Surat wherein he met Mr. Victor D'souza (Accused no.2) for outstanding payment. It is alleged that the supervisor of Complainant on that day saw that the Crane driver namely Mr.Santosh Pandey and Mr.Victor D'souza were going on the same bike. On 08.10.2001 at around 11:00 a.m. the complainant received a call from one shri Mangi of L & T company wherein he enquired about the crane driver of complainant first and then further asked whether the outstanding payment is received or not and on denial for the receipt of same by complainant, Shri Mangi informed that he will call back later and after sometime Shri Mangi called and informed the Complainant that cheque of Rs.1,28,825/- was issued and the same has been cleared in the Dena Bank. account no.101693 of 'The Supreme Crane Hiring Co. Thereafter the complainant telephonically enquired about the said bank account no. at Dena Bank and it was informed to him that said bank account is opened by one Santoshkumar Pandey and was introduced by R & B enterprise. Page 2 of 6 R/CR.RA/1205/2017 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 2.2 It is alleged in the F.I.R that the complainant's driver Santoshkumar Pandey in collusion with Mr. Victor D'souza, concerned officer of Dena Bank and R & B enterprise opened a bogus bank account of complainant's firm and deposited cheque and withdraw cash Rs.1,25,000/- from the said bogus bank account and thereby committed alleged offences as narrated in the F.I.R. 2.3 Pursuant to filing of the FIR, investigation was commenced and charge-sheet was submitted before the competent Court where the present petitioner is shown as original accused No.3 and ultimately the said case was committed to the Court of learned Magistrate Court and registered being Criminal Case No.6534 of 2002. 2.4 The petitioner moved an application below Exh.4 seeking to discharge from the offence which after hearing both the sides came to be rejected by the learned trial Court and present revision is filed. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner Ms.Bhavsar has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and not involved directly in the offence and at present he is aged about 78 years and therefore some leniency may be shown to him as the petitioner was discharging his duty as a Manager and has not played any vital role and has been wrongly arraigned as accused without there being any specific role attributed to him in the FIR. She would further submit that as no name is reflected from the FIR as well as from the statement of the witness; but subsequently charge-sheet was filed where his name is shown as accused No.3. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that account details in question has been verified by the colleague of the petitioner and R/CR.RA/1205/2017 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 subsequently the modification in the account has been carried out which has resulted into the withdrawal of the amount from the account of the original complainant and the petitioner has nothing to do with that. 3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is not directly or indirectly involved in the alleged offence and was discharging his duty and therefore he would urge to allow this revision application and to discharge the petitioner from the alleged accusation. 4. Per contra, learned APP Mr.Patel would submit that offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under sections 408, 467, 468, 472, 120(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and therefore when the charge of conspiracy is specifically alleged; the trial Court is required to be afforded the opportunity to lead the evidence and to come to the conclusion thereafter. He would further submit that in so far as the involvement of the accused is concerned by saying that his colleague had verified the record and permitted to allow the modification, the said aspect can be verified by leading material evidence before the trial Court and therefore this Court may not interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the discharge application. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and examining the impugned order, the undisputed facts emerging from the record are that petitioner was working as a Branch Manager where the account of the complainant was opened and not only that some modifications, variations and manipulations seems to have been carried out which otherwise not possible without the involvement and acknowledgment of the Officer, more particularly, the Head of the Bank / Department who is the Manager in the present case. To be noted that because of the nexus on the part of the responsible Officer, the co- accused succeeded in getting the huge amount transferred from the R/CR.RA/1205/2017 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 account of the original complainant solely on the basis of the modification carried out by other and endorsed by the applicant in his capacity as Head of the Department. Thus, the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner that no role was attributed in the FIR or the statement of the witnesses and simply verification is done by the applicant does not inspire any confidence. 6. Furthermore, it also appears from the record that as per the statement recorded of the original complainant, bank account of the firm of the complainant was opened with the forged signature of the co- accused and therefore, if such bogus account is not opened with the forged signature of the co-accused, the question of withdrawing the amount from the bank account of the complainant would not arise. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has failed to discharge his duty to verify such details while maintaining the bank account of the complainant. 7. Furthermore, when the charges of hatching a conspiracy is alleged against the petitioner, firstly there must at least be an accusation of meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act, which is not illegal in itself, by illegal means, which otherwise can be proved by leading a substantial evidence. The essential ingredients to prove the offence of conspiracy, which being a distinct offence, all conspirators are liable for the acts of each other of the crime or crimes which have been committed as a result of conspiracy. If Section 120-B, IPC is seen, it appears that the sine qua non for an offence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an offence and it consists of an agreement between two or more persons to commit the criminal offence, irrespective of the further consideration whether or not the offence is actually committed as the very fact of conspiracy constitutes the offence. Page 5 of 6 R/CR.RA/1205/2017 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 Here, in the present case, the charges of conspiracy is specifically alleged against the petitioner and, in absence of any material to the contrary pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the application seeking to discharge cannot be entertained. 8. In the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Interim-relief, if any, shall stand vacated. (R. T. VACHHANI, J) sompura Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA SOMPURA(HC00189), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/09/2025 14:51:24