BHURABHAI CHHATRASINH SUVAN vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.RA/626/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 626 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHURABHAI CHHATRASINH SUVAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YM THAKKAR(902) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 04/05/2026

JUDGMENT
1) By way of a revision application under Section 397 (read with Section
438 of BNSS) and Section 401 (read with Section 442 of BNSS) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”), the applicant
has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order
dated 14.06.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, Dahod, in an
application below Exh:6 in Special ACB Case No.04/2015 and thereby,
be pleased to discharge the applicant from the charge under Sections
7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2) Heard Mr.Yogesh M. Thakkar, learned counsel for the applicant and
Ms. Bhatt, learned APP for the State.
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:05:06 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/626/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
3) Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant Bharat Kantibhai
Parmar, filed a complaint at Dahod ACB Police Station, stating that
th
his son Himmatkumar and Ushan, who passed in 8 std. And both of
them wanted to take admission in Nutan Secondary School, at
th
Limkheda Pali, in 9 Std. A fortnight ago, he met the Principal of
Nutan Secondary High School, Mr. Suwan for admission, whereas, he
asked for leaving certificate and marksheets of both the children and
after seeing them, he said that he would admit their children in the
school, but for that, he demanded a bribe of Rs.500/-. At that time, as
the complainant did not have the money, Principal Mr. Suvan told to
provide money later. Thereafter, on 24.6.2013, when the complainant
went to the school to meet his children, principal Mr. Suvan
demanded Rs. 500/- and further told that if he did not pay the money,
he would cancel the admission of both the children. Therefore, the
complainant told that he would give within 1-2 days. However, the
Principal asked to give the money on 26.06.2023 within school hours.
However, the complainant did not want to pay the money, he
approached ACB Police Station, Dahod and lodged the complaint. The
raiding party made a trap and during trap, the accused caught red
handed while accepting bribe from the complainant.
4) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned
Sessions Court has committed error in rejecting the discharge
application though there was no valid sanction from the competent
authority. While the applicant was in government service, sanction
was refused twice by the authority concerned, however,
subsequently, chargesheet came to be filed and cognizance has been
taken. Hence, he has requested to allow the present revision
application as prayed for. In support of the arguments, learned
counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Chittaranjan Das Vs. State of Orissa,
reported in 2011 Cri.L.J 4306 and argued that once the sanction was
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:05:06 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/626/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
sought and refused by the competent authority to prosecute against
the public servant while he was in service, he cannot be prosecuted
after retirement. Herein, twice sanction was rejected by the authority
and subsequently he was exonerated from departmental
proceedings. Chargesheet was filed and cognizance has been taken.
Hence, Mr. Thakkar has submitted that impugned order passed by the
learned Sessions Court is against the settled principle of law, which
requires to be quashed and set aside.
5) Per contra, learned APP for the respondent State has opposed the
present revision application and submitted that, the applicant at the
relevant point of time, was public servant has accepted bribe other
than his legal remuneration. There is no bar in taking cognizance after
retirement of a public servant. Hence, merely the accused was retired
and subsequently, cognizance has been taken, then it is not a ground
to discharge the accused as after retirement, sanction has been
sought for and in absence of valid sanction, proceedings initiated
under Section 19 of the Act. Furthermore, present applicant was
caught red handed while accepting bribe in the pretext of giving
school admission in his school as he was Principal in that school, which
is not permissible. Ms. Bhatt has produced GR dated 25.06.2003 and
submitted that no case is made out to entertain present revision
application. Hence, she has prayed not to entertain present revision
application.
Learned APP has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Station House Officer, CBI/acb/Bangalore vs.
B.A.Srinivasan, reported in 2020 (2) SCC 153 and State of Punjab Vs.
Labh Singh, reported in 2014 (16) SCC 807.
6) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon
perusal of the material on record, it appears that, according to the
prosecution case, a trap was laid on 26.06.2013 on the allegation that
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:05:06 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/626/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
the applicant, while serving as Headmaster of Nutan Secondary
School at Limkheda Pally, demanded a bribe of ₹500 from the
complainant for granting admission to his children and was caught
red-handed while accepting the same. After completion of the
investigation, sanction for prosecution was sought, as the school was
a grant-in-aid institution run by a trust. However, the management of
the school refused to grant sanction on 28.10.2013. Thereafter, a
second communication was addressed to the competent authority,
but the management again declined sanction on 14.02.2014. It is an
undisputed fact that during the applicant’s tenure in service, sanction
under Section 19 of the Act was sought twice by the investigating
officer, but both requests were rejected, and no sanction was
accorded by the department while the applicant remained in service.
Subsequently, the applicant retired from service, and it was
contended that after his retirement, no sanction was required. On
this basis, a charge-sheet came to be filed and cognizance was taken.
Consequently, the applicant filed a discharge application, which was
rejected by the learned Sessions Court by the impugned order.
Aggrieved by the same, the present revision application has been
preferred before this Court
7) From the above, this Court is of the considered view that sanction to
prosecute the public servant was sought twice and was rejected on
both occasions; therefore, in light of the Government Circular, no
offence is made out. From the Resolution passed by the Trust, it
appears that the accused, in his capacity as Principal of the school,
had accepted fees for the complainant’s two children. The Trust
resolved that, apart from the prescribed fees, development fees of
₹250 per student were also collected. Upon inquiry, it was found that
no bribe had been accepted by the applicant-accused, and on this
basis, sanction to prosecute him was rejected twice.
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:05:06 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/626/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
8) On the same set of facts, once sanction was refused on 28.10.2013
and subsequently, once again it was placed before the Management
of the school, the same was also rejected after taken into
consideration all the materials. Therefore, this Court is of considered
view that sanction was rejected while the applicant was in service,
question does not arise again to put the accused in the trial. Hence,
this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Chittaranjan Das
(supra) , wherein Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that “ in a
case in which sanction sought is refused by the competent authority,
while the public servant is in service, he cannot be prosecuted later
after retirement, notwithstanding the fact that no sanction for
prosecution under the prevention of Corruption Act is necessary after
the retirement of public servant. Any other view will render the
protection illusory.”
9) In view of the above, learned Sessions Court has not committed any
error in rejecting the discharge application. Concept of discharge in
criminal jurisprudence operates as constitutional safeguard ensuring
that no individual is compelled to undergo burden of criminal trial
unless and until prosecution proves the case prima facie. Considering
the aforesaid facts and mandatory provisions, this is not a fit case to
continue the trial against the applicant in absence of any valid
sanction as earlier twice has been declined by the competent
authority while the applicant was in service. Therefore, the decisions
relied on by learned APP would not be applicable to the present case.
10) For the foregoing reasons and observations, present revision
application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed . The
judgment and order dated 14.06.2016 passed by learned Special
Judge, Dahod, in an application below Exh:6 in Special ACB Case
No.04/2015 is hereby quashed and set aside The applicant is
acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Rule is made
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:05:06 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/626/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
absolute. As the applicant accused is on bail, he need not surrender.
The applicant is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not
required in any other case. The bail and bail bond stands cancelled
and surety, if any, stands discharged. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:05:06 IST 2026