CHAITARBHAI DAMJIBHAI VASAVA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.RA/1551/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1551 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
CHAITARBHAI DAMJIBHAI VASAVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. AUM M KOTWAL(7320) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. MAITHILI MEHTA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY

Date : 27/05/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed with the following
prayers :-
(A) To admit and allow the present application:
(B) That this Hon'ble Court may call for the records and
proceedings of Sessions Case No. 6 of 2025 (consolidated
with Sessions Case No. 5 of 2025) before the Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Rajpipla;
(C) That this Hon'ble Court may thereupon quash and set
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed May 27 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 28 14:42:44 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1551/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/05/2026
aside the order dated 04.05.2026 passed by the Sessions
Court, rejecting the Revisionist's application under Section
233, CrPC (passed below Exhibit 226) (Annexure-A).
(D) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this
Revision, this Court may stay the further proceedings of
Sessions Case No. 6 of 2025 (consolidated with Sessions
Case NO. 5 of 2025) pending before the Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Rajpipla.
(E) For ad-interim ex parte relief in terms of para (D).
(F) For such other orders as may be deemed appropriate in
the interests of justice.
2. Mr. Aum Kotwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the applicant has submitted that he has a fundamental
right of free and fair trial. The statement of the accused
persons came to be recorded under Section 313 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (for short the ‘CRPC’), on
27.03.2026 and accused Nos. 1,4,5,7 and 9 had produced
certain copies of documents at the time of recording their
respective statements under Section 313. It is the specific
case of the petitioners that thereafter, the matters were fixed
for final arguments and the documents which were filed on
record by the aforesaid accused persons while recording
their Section 313 statements could not be exhibited and
therefore, their valuable right to fair trial has been
compromised and hence, they were compelled to move an
application under Section 233 of the CRPC on 01.05.2026
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed May 27 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 28 14:42:44 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1551/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/05/2026
to examine certain defence witnesses. This application dated
01.05.2026 came to be rejected by the learned trial court by
order dated 04.05.2026 which is impugned herein.
3. It has been pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor
that the entire purpose of the present petition is nothing but
an attempt to delay the inevitable by delaying and derailing
the trial, inasmuch as, the petitioners had already moved
another application under Section 311 of the CRPC for
recall of witnesses despite categorically stating in their
respective statements under Section 313 that no witnesses
are to be examined by them. Essentially, both these
applications are for identical purpose, which is to examine
witnesses in support of certain documents, a right which
has been explicitly given up in their respective Section 313
statements.
4. What is of greater concern to this Court is that none of
the proceedings for recalling the witness, the rejection
thereof by the learned Trial Court by order dated
20.04.2026, the further rejection of the Criminal Revision
Application No. 1438 of 2026 by this Court by order dated
07.05.2026 and the challenge against the same and the
subsequent rejection of the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
9183 of 2026 by order dated 19.05.2026 is even whispered
in this petition.
5. To a pointed query as to what is the explanation for
the suppression of these proceedings, which according to
the Court, touches upon the very subject matter of the
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed May 27 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 28 14:42:44 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1551/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/05/2026
present dispute, learned advocate Mr. Vijay Dalal, appearing
online along with Mr. Aum Kotwal has submitted about
various other things except the cause for such suppression
of averments.
6. Thereafter Mr. Aum Kotwal has proceeded to handover
certain documents purported to be a paper book. A perusal
of those documents clearly show that they are not the paper
book of learned Court below and a just compilation of
certain documents including the orders dated 07.05.2026
and 19.05.2026 of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court
respectively. Be that as it may, s I find that the submission
of Mr. Hardik Dave, learned Public Prosecutor that these
proceedings are nothing but a last ditch effort in delaying
the trial, is perfectly justified under the circumstances.
Apart from the suppression of these documents to which
there is no satisfactory explanation provided by the
petitioners herein, I find that this is clearly a second
attempt in introducing witnesses at the fag end of the trial
since the trial is nearing completion and has been listed
repeatedly for final arguments of the defence, the
prosecution having completed its arguments. The order
dated 19.05.2026 dismissing the Special Leave Petition of
this very applicant categorically records as under :-
“1. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court; hence, the special
leave petition is dismissed.
2. However, contentions regarding admissibility of the
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed May 27 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 28 14:42:44 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1551/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/05/2026
additional documents led in evidence by the prosecution, if
any, is kept open.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
7. Thus, a perusal of para 2 of the aforesaid order
would show that all contentions regarding the
admissibility of the additional documents led in evidence
by the prosecution, if any, has been kept open. Therefore,
it is always open for the defence to raise all these
contentions in their closing arguments. Thus, the
apprehension of the applicant that his right to free and
fair trial will be compromised is unfounded. Thus, there
is no substance in the present application and the same
deserves to rejected and is accordingly, rejected, however,
without any costs.
(D.N.RAY,J)
MARY VADAKKAN
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed May 27 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 28 14:42:44 IST 2026