Gujarat High Court
Bhanuprasad Dalpatram Shrimali vs State Of Gujarat on 24 March, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/307/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 307 of 2026
==========================================================
BHANUPRASAD DALPATRAM SHRIMALI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR K B MAGHNANI(9673) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. TAPASVI C BAROT(15562) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DM DEVNANI(5880) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 24/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant is a retired stenographer of the Court of
Valsad District. He at the relevant time, when the FIR
No.1/2015 was registered with Gujarat High Court Vigilance
Cell for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)
and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under
Section 466, 471 and 196 read with Section 114 of Indian
Penal Code, was serving at the Court at Vapi.
2. The prosecution started on the basis of the complaint of
Advocate Mr. Jagat J.Patel, mainly practicing at Vapi, who by
an application dated 25.01.2015 had complained about the
corrupt practice of the Junior Division Judge Vapi in discharge
of his judicial work to the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat.
Consequently, on preliminary inquiry conducted by the then
Registrar of Vigilance Cell of High Court of Gujarat, the
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:57:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/307/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
statement of complainant advocate was recorded. He
submitted audio and video cassettes prepared from spy
cameras which was made to be kept secretly by a peon in the
chamber of the Judicial Magistrate.
3. The videos, as alleged consists of different incident,
which took place from March, 2014 to May, 2014 regarding
the alleged corrupt practices of the Judicial Magistrate in
connivance with the colleague Judge, Advocates, Prosecutors
and staff members. After extensive preliminary inquiry, it was
found that the Judges, Advocates, Prosecutors and staff
members were hand in gloves with the Magistrate, hence, the
vigilance cell filed the FIR at the police station of Gujarat
High Court.
4. The applicant being stenographer attached to the
Judicial magistrate has made a prayer for discharge in the
case by moving the Special Judge, Valsad in Special ACB Case
No.41 of 2020, whereby the learned Special Judge was
pleased to reject the application on 30.10.2025. Aggrieved by
the rejection of the discharge application, the applicant is
before this Court, making the prayer under revision
jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. read with Section
442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set
aside the order of the special Judge and to consider the case
for discharging the applicant from the offences alleged in
Special ACB Case No.41 of 2020.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.B.Manghnani along with
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:57:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/307/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
advocate Mr. Tapasvi C.Barot for the applicant and learned
advocate Mr. D.M. Devnani for respondent No.2.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Manghnani placed reliance on the
order exonerating the present applicant in the departmental
inquiry submitting that the present applicant as a
stenographer of the Magistrate would have no role to play in
the corrupt practice of the Judicial Magistrate and, thus
learned advocate Mr. Manghnani stated that the applicant has
been rightly exonerated in the departmental inquiry. Hence,
prayed that parallel observation should be made in the
present matter discharging the applicant.
6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Manghnani further stated that
one incident appearing in the video, where the applicant is
found with accused No.5, the clerk of the Court in the
chamber of the Judicial Magistrate, should not be taken
adverse since presence of the applicant as a stenographer in
the chamber of the Judicial Magistrate is an indispensable
fact, where there would be no ground of even assumption or
presumption of any illegal activity, where the applicant as a
stenographer is bound to preserve the secrecy of the matters
directed by the Presiding Officer, and submitted that mere
presence of the applicant, as found in the video could not
draw any inference of any corrupt practice by the applicant as
a stenographer of the Court.
6.2 Advocate Mr.Manghnani has also referred to the
transcript of the conversation between the Judicial Officer and
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:57:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/307/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
the present applicant, to state that the contents of the learned
Judge, as has been referred was actually addressed to the
clerk Balkrishna, which could be verified from the later
conversation, which become relevant on the record. Advocate
Mr.Manghnani, thus stated that prima facie the conversation
of the Judge with Balkrishna could not be made a ground for
the applicant to face the trial.
6.3 Learned advocate Mr.Manghnani has relied upon the
judgments in case of (i) Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs.
Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr., (2020) 2
SCC 636 (ii) Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal And
Anr., (1979) 3 SCC 4, (iii) Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, (iv) State of Karnataka Vs.
L.Muniswamy And Others, (1977) 2 SCC 699 and (v) Central
Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K.Narayana Rao,
(2012) 9 SCC 512, to substantiate his arguments stating that
the result of the departmental proceedings should be
considered, while assessing the case against the applicant
during the criminal trial.
6.4 Learned advocate Mr.Manghnani has also made
reference to the judgment of Prafulla Kumar Samal And
Anr. (supra), to refer to the power of the Special Judge, while
considering the discharge application and to refer to the
meaning of ‘public servant’.
7. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. D.M.
Devnani referred to one of the page of charge-sheet as ‘H’,
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:57:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/307/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
and submitted that therein the specific role of the present
applicant has been referred to by making reference of the
conversation, which had taken place between the Judge and
the present applicant along with Shri Balkrishna. Mr. Devnani
stated that the contents of this transcript prima facie refers to
the connivance of the Judge and the staff members; the
presence of the present applicant, at the relevant in the
chamber of the Judge was not as a stenographer, but as a
party involved in the crime.
7.1 Learned advocate Mr. Devnani has also referred to the
conversation transcribed in the vernacular language to pin-
point that the intention of the accused while replying to the
conversation itself shows his involvement and, thus submitted
there cannot be detail observation of the contents of the
conversation to go into the merits of the case when the trial is
yet to begin. The real facts could be disclosed only after the
evidence would be laid in terms of the allegation against the
accused and the conversation dealt with.
7.2 Learned advocate Mr. Devnani further stated that the
reliance of the acquittal in the departmental proceedings
cannot be made a ground for discharge, where in the
departmental proceedings the proof is on the basis of the
preponderance of probability, while during the criminal trial
the cases have to be proved beyond the reasonable doubt. The
departmental inquires are conducted as per the service rules,
while the trial would be against all the accused jointly, hence,
the evidence cannot be separated during the hearing of the
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:57:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/307/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
discharge proceedings, where the Judge has to weigh the
evidence and form opinion only on the limited question of
whether a prima facie is made out.
8. Learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt has referred to judgment in
the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap,
(2021) 11 SCC 191, to rely on the observation made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of the scope under Section 227/239 of
the Cr.P.C., submitting that the High Court while sitting in the
revision jurisdiction should not enter into the merits of the
case and should not weigh the material on record to decide
whether the conviction of the accused would follow.
8.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt has also submitted that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has also referred to the limited scope
of entering into the transcript of the conversation between the
complainant and accused.
9. The main crux of the argument of learned advocate
Mr.Manghnani is about exoneration in the departmental
proceedings. In the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari
(supra), wherein the observation with regard to the
departmental proceedings and trial after considering the
various judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down
the ratio in para 32 and its conclusion in para-39, which read
as under:
“After referring to various judgments, this Court then
culled out the ratio of those decisions in paragraph 38
as follows:-
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:57:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/307/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
“38. The ratio which can be culled out from these
decisions can broadly be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution
can be launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not
necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal
proceedings are independent in nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution
in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the
proceeding for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement
Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of
law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the
Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in
favour of the person facing trial for identical violation
will depend upon the nature of finding. If the
exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical
ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue;
and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where
the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and
the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the
same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed
to continue, the underlying principle being the higher
standard of proof in criminal cases.”
It finally concluded:
39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to
judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication
proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution
is identical and the exoneration of the person
concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on
merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no
contravention of the provisions of the Act in the
adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person
concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the
Court.”
10. The standard of proof, which is necessary for dealing
with the departmental proceedings and the criminal
proceedings is different. The departmental proceeding would
be against the single person, singling out the facts of the
delinquent, while here, the proceeding would be judged in
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:57:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/307/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
connection with the act of the present applicant with the co-
accused, where the charge is under the criminal proceedings.
Adjudication proceedings in departmental inquiry and
criminal proceedings are independent in nature and the
finding in the departmental proceedings is not binding on the
proceeding for criminal proceeding.
11. Another contention is made by learned advocate
Mr.Manghnani on the transcript. In the case of State of
Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (supra), as referred
by learned APP Ms. Bhatt, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed in para-11 and 12 as under:
“11. Having considered the reasoning given by the
High Court and the grounds which are weighed with
the High Court while discharging the accused, we are
of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded in its
jurisdiction in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction
and has acted beyond the scope of Section
227/239 Cr.P.C. While discharging the accused, the
High Court has gone into the merits of the case and
has considered whether on the basis of the material on
record, the accused is likely to be convicted or not. For
the aforesaid, the High Court has considered in detail
the transcript of the conversation between the
complainant and the accused which exercise at this
stage to consider the discharge application and/or
framing of the charge is not permissible at all. As
rightly observed and held by the learned Special Judge
at the stage of framing of the charge, it has to be seen
whether or not a prima facie case is made out and the
defence of the accused is not to be considered. After
considering the material on record including the
transcript of the conversation between the
complainant and the accused, the learned Special
Judge having found that there is a prima facie case of
the alleged offence under Section 7 of the PC Act,
framed the charge against the accused for the said
offence. The High Court materially erred in negating
the exercise of considering the transcript in detail and
in considering whether on the basis of the material on
record the accused is likely to be convicted for thePage 8 of 9
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:57:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/307/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
offence under Section 7 of the PC Act or not. As
observed hereinabove, the High Court was required to
consider whether a prima facie case has been made
out or not and whether the accused is required to be
further tried or not. At the stage of framing of the
charge and/or considering the discharge application,
the mini trial is not permissible. At this stage, it is to
be noted that even as per Section 7 the PC Act, even
an attempt constitutes an offence. Therefore, the High
Court has erred and/or exceeded in virtually holding a
mini trial at the stage of discharge application.
12. We are not further entering into the merits of the
case and/or merits of the transcript as the same is
required to be considered at the time of trial. Defence
on merits is not to be considered at the stage of
framing of the charge and/or at the stage of discharge
application.”
12. The rest of the judgments relied upon by learned
advocate Mr.Manghnani would be academic in purpose, which
would not touch the facts of the case. In the referred
judgment related to Ashok Kumar Kashyap (supra) entering
in detail to consider the transcript for analysis for the
probability of conviction has been considered as material
error of High Court, wherein too the case was under provision
of Corruption Act.
13. Having considered the principle laid down in the
referred and relied upon judgment, this Court does not find
any grounds or merits to enter into facts of the case in the
revision jurisdiction, which is very limited. Hence, the present
application is rejected.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/51
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 20:57:10 IST 2026