The court upheld that sufficient evidence exists for prosecution, rejecting the discharge application based on the applicant's involvement in the alleged cryptocurrency fraud.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The applicant has filed the present application under Section 438 and 442 of the BNSS against the order dated 17.8.2024 passed by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Designated Court, Rajkot in an application below Exh.26 in Sessions as GPID Case No.17 of 2023, whereby the application filed by the applicant seeking discharge from the case came to be dismissed.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the application are such that the FIR being I-C.R. No.4/2019 came to be registered at CID Crime (Crime), Rajkot Zone, against the present applicant and the other co-accused for the offences punishable under the provisions of IPC and GPID Act . After the conclusion of the investigation, the investigating agency had filed charge-sheet against the accused persons before learned Special Court. The applicant herein thereafter had preferred an application below Exh.26 in Sessions (GPID) Case No.17 of 2023 which came to be dismissed by learned Special Court, Rajkot vide impugned order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the applicant had preferred the present application.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.N.M.Kapadia appearing for the applicant. Learned APP Mr.Hardik Mehta for the respondent State.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the present applicant had entered into the picture somewhere in the month of October-November, 2018 and the offences lodged in the FIR had been committed prior thereto. Therefore, the applicant is not responsible for the commission of the offence in question. The present applicant was merely working as a Consultant with the company and had merely provided a software.

4.1 The papers of the investigation reveal that the software which was created by the applicant had not been used at all for inviting investments from the public at large. The victims had invested in the products which were developed prior to the month of October-November, 2018 and there is not a single victim in the charge-sheet who has alleged that he / she had invested in the product of the applicant or any investments were made by them after the month of September, 2018 based on the representation of the present applicant.

4.2 He further submitted that the other co-accused had introduced the website namely www.crypto EBT.com somewhere in the year 2016-2017. Thereafter the said website was closed and a new website in the name of www.mypowerBT.com had been launched. On this particularly created website, the details of the investors from the previous website was brought forward. Thereafter this website was also closed and a new website in the name of www.mypoweryatra.com was launched by one of the co- accused. He submitted that all the above three referred websites were developed and maintained by one Divyang Bhimani and the data servers of all the above websites were with serverwala.com which was owned by one Akshay Saini. Thereafter, the co- accused Dinesh Gadhvi was required to pay the server charges to serverwala.com and since the said payment was not made by him, the website and data therein was struck down in the month of December, 2018. Thus, the data which was available on the website was lost. He further submitted that it is not the case that the data which was available on the previous website was handed over to the present applicant. Therefore, there is nothing to indicate that the applicant was entrusted with any data or money which was invested in the above referred three websites.

He submitted that the applicant had developed the new website having crypto currency in the form of a Yatra Coin in the month of October-November, 2018. The said software was operated by the present applicant as per the instructions of the co-accused till the month of June, 2019 and thereafter no fresh investments were made in the Yatra Coin website. Moreover, there are no victims who may say that they had made any investments in the Yatra Coin.

4.3 He submitted that the administrative pane