Point of Law: In order to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a must. In other words, it is sine qua non for invoking the plea of conspiracy against the accused

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Rule is returnable forthwith. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent – State. With the consent of both the learned advocates, the present criminal revision application is taken up for final hearing today itself.

2. By way of this Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed below Exhibit-73 in Special Case No. 6 of 2019 dated 08.03.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (City Civil Court No. 18).

3. The case of the petitioner is that on 08.04.2018, a complaint was lodged by one Shailendrasinh Raghuvansinh, Dy. S.P. CID (Crime), inter alia alleging that an application was received on 23.02.2018 from one Shailesh Babulal Bhatt, resident of Surat making accusation against LCB Police Inspector, Amreli and Police personnel to the effect that in a While Fortuner Car, he was abducted from Nidhi Petrol Pump along with his driver Mahipal and driver Kirit Paladiya. It is further alleged that near Keshav Farm situated at Dehgam Road, he was forcefully asked to stay there, a threat was given and from Mobile of Kirit Paladiya 200 bit coins were transferred in the wallet of Police Inspector A.P. Patel. It is also stated that another sum of Rs. 32 crores was also asked to transfer and thereafter another sum of Rs.78.50 lakhs were transferred by one Rajesh Desai and Girish Kanani through them for compromise, an amount was stated to have been sent. On receipt of such application filed by Mr. Shailesh Babulal Bhatt, a complaint came to be lodged. A detailed narration is reflecting from a complaint which has been filed and later on, on 11.05.2018 Section 167 and Section 119 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added so also provisions of section under the Prevention of Corruption Act and at the end of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.

3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that he is merely a Head Constable, was serving at a relevant point of time at Amreli, LCB and under the instructions of his superior authority i.e. the Senior Police Officer, who has given Vardhi and according to his instructions, along with other Police personnel, the petitioner was also accompanied in the raid. By basically stating that following the instructions of his superior Police Officer, he is wrongly roped in and, therefore, an application was submitted at Exhibit-59 before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking discharge from the prosecution since according to the petitioner, no material is prima facie found to conclude against the petitioner and therefore, in absence of any case being made out against the petitioner, a request was made to discharge him from the prosecution. This application according to the petitioner was taken up for hearing by the learned City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad who vide order dated 08.03.2021 was placed to reject the application and it is this order passed by the learned City Civil Court No. 18, Special Atrocity Court, Ahmedabad is made the subject matter of present criminal revision application.

4. Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not only unjust, but contrary to the material on record and as such, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. It has been submitted that during the course of investigation, nothing is found against the petitioner, except the fact that he joined in a raid pursuant to the instructions of his superior Police Officer and further none of the statement indicates that the petitioner is connected with the actual crime which is alleged in the complaint and, therefore, in the absence of any material, the learned Judge, ought not to have rejected the request. By referring to some of pages attached to the petition compilation by sepa