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 3rd 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 3rd 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