Mahesh Jethwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24472


1 Cr.R. NO.175/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI


CRIMINAL REVISION No. 175 of 2026

MAHESH JETHWANI AND OTHERS
Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Ramkrishna Shastri - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Surendra Pal Singh Alawa – Government Advocate for
the respondents State.

Reserved on :- 20.08.2026
Post on :- 01.09.2026
______________________________________________________
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 01-09-2026
17:47:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24472


2 Cr.R. NO.175/2026
This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred under
Section 438 read with Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.). The present revision has been filed by
the revisionists against the respondent State, challenging the
framing of charges. The revisionists are seeking the intervention of
this Court to examine the legality and correctness of the
proceedings conducted by the subordinate Court.
2. The revisionists/applicants have specifically
challenged the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Session Judge, Indore (M.P.) in S.T. No.
528/2017. By way of the said impugned order, the learned Trial
Court proceeded to frame charges against the applicants under
various sections. The applicants have prayed for setting aside this
order and seek their discharge from the alleged offences.
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. The facts in brief, as extracted from the prosecution
story, are that on 26.01.2017, the police received secret information
indicating that some persons were involved in gambling activities.
Acting upon the receipt of this secret information, the police team
reached the specified spot to verify the inputs. Upon reaching the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 01-09-2026
17:47:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24472


3 Cr.R. NO.175/2026
premises, the police commenced their search operations as per the
standard procedures.
4. During the spot inspection, the police found four
accused persons, namely Monu @ Mohan, Deepak Katariya, and
the present applicants Mahesh Jethwani and Prahlad Rupani. The
prosecution alleges that these individuals were sitting there and
watching a cricket match recording. The police conducted a search
of the premises and seized cash amounting to Rs. 2,10,600/-
specifically from the accused Monu @ Mohan and Deepak
Katariya.
5. In addition to the cash, the police also seized one LED
TV, a Satta slip, and 22 mobile phones from the spot. Based on
these seizures, the police registered a crime under Sections 467 and
468 of the I.P.C., Section 66-D of the I.T. Act, 2000, and Section 4
of the Gambling Act. Statements of the co-accused were recorded
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, implicating a total of ten
persons.
6. After the completion of the investigation, the police
filed the final report in the form of a charge sheet against the
applicants and other co-accused persons. Subsequently, on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 01-09-2026
17:47:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24472


4 Cr.R. NO.175/2026
24.10.2024, the Trial Court considered the material on record and
framed the charges u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. and
Section 66-D of I.T. Act, 2000 and Section 4 of Gambling Act. This
culminated in the passing of the impugned order dated 21.11.2025,
which is now the subject matter of the present criminal revision
petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE REVISIONIST
7. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the
learned Trial Court erred in framing the charges against the
applicants under the respective penal provisions. It is forcefully
contended that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have
been falsely implicated in the alleged case. The defense argues that
the entire implication was done just in order to tarnish their image
and reputation in society.
8. It is further submitted that prima facie the applicants
have no mens rea to commit the alleged crime. The counsel asserts
that there is no direct or in-direct evidence available in the charge
sheet against the present applicants. Furthermore, it is argued that
the police authority mala fide implicated the applicants, whereas no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 01-09-2026
17:47:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24472


5 Cr.R. NO.175/2026
specific overt act is shown against them to establish their
involvement in the aforesaid crime.
9. The revisionists contended that nothing has been seized
from their personal possession and they were merely watching an
old cricket match recording or highlight. It is pointed out that there
is no documentary evidence, no conversation, or no letter which
suggests that at any point of time they were directly or indirectly
involved in any type of gambling or betting activities, showing the
investigation is biased.
CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE / RESPONDENT
10. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent State has vehemently opposed the present criminal
revision petition. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the
learned Trial Court has committed no error in framing the charges.
The respondent asserts that the charges are based on the material
available in the charge sheet, and the arguments of the revisionists
are factual defenses to be tested at trial.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 01-09-2026
17:47:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24472


6 Cr.R. NO.175/2026
11. This Court has heard the parties and perused the record
carefully.
12. At the outset, it is essential to briefly discuss the
limited scope of revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court. The
revisional jurisdiction is strictly supervisory in nature and the
Revisional Court does not function as a regular Court of Appeal.
Consequently, a detailed re-appreciation of evidence is generally
impermissible unless it is absolutely required to prevent a gross
miscarriage of justice or to correct a patent illegality.
13. Upon a careful examination of the rival submissions
and the impugned order, it is observed that the grounds raised by
the applicants constitute substantive defenses. In the considered
opinion of this Court, these all are factual questions which need
thorough investigation and trial. The evidentiary value of the seized
articles and the exact nature of the applicants' involvement cannot
be pre-judged or adjudicated in revisional proceedings.
14. The Trial Court is only required to ascertain the
existence of a prima facie case at the stage of framing charges,
which it has rightfully done based on the charge sheet. Therefore, in
view of the settled legal position and the factual matrix of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 01-09-2026
17:47:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24472


7 Cr.R. NO.175/2026
present case, there is no interference of this Court at this stage. The
trial must be allowed to proceed to unearth the truth through the
adduction of evidence.
15. Accordingly, finding no jurisdictional error, patent
illegality, or material irregularity in the impugned order, the present
petition is devoid of merits. Consequently, the Criminal Revision is
dismissed. The impugned order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Session Judge, Indore (M.P.) in S.T. No.
528/2017 is hereby affirmed , and the trial Court is directed to
proceed in accordance with the law.

(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
rashmi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 01-09-2026
17:47:30