IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1510 of 2024 With R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1716 of 2024 ==========================================================

RAJIV SURESHBHAI SHETH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR YATIN SONI(868) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS MARIYA M DALAL(3957) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR DHRUV D DESAI(9909) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 08/04/2026

ORDER

1. In Criminal Revision Application No.1510 of 2024, the prayer is made to quash and set aside the order dated 10.09.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1864 of 2024 by the learned 3^rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) by which the Sessions Court rejected the recall application.

2. In Criminal Revision Application No.1716 of 2024, the prayer is made to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 03.06.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2022 by the learned 4^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) with a direction to remand the appeal for fresh hearing.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Yatin Soni submitted that the Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2022 was earlier heard by another learned Judge and the matter was reserved for judgment, but during that course, the learned Judge who heard the matter got transferred and thereafter, the matter came before another Presiding Officer, but the appellant was not aware of the transfer of the learned Judge and then, the new Presiding Officer without even sending notice to the appellant and without hearing the advocate on record, had delivered the judgment and therefore, being aggrieved by the same, the appellant as applicant moved the Sessions Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1864 of 2024 for recalling the final judgment and order dated 03.06.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2022.

3.1 Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the appeal was for challenging the conviction under Sections 37 and 40 of the AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, whereby the trial Court had ordered the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and six months and imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.

3.2 Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the recall application came to be rejected on the ground that the order passed was on merits. Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the learned Judge failed to adhere to the procedural aspect that once a learned Judge, after hearing on merits, does not declare the judgment and the matter comes before another learned Judge, then he is bound to give the hearing to the parties prior to declaring the judgment. Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that impugned judgment could not be considered on merits since the learned Judge has not heard from the side of the accused who are the most aggrieved person facing the conviction and sentence.

3.3 Advocate Mr. Soni has relied on the judgments of Ganesh Patel vs. Umakant Rajoria, 2022 SCC Online SC 2050, Vishnu Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and Another, AIR 2011 SC 1232, Asit Kumar Kar vs. State of West Bengal and Others, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 282, Sushila Kumari vs. Col. Satish Chander, AIR 2017 SC 1751, and Shankar vs. The State of Maharashtra, in Criminal Appeal No.1106 of 2019 (@Special Leave Petition (CrL.) No.7230 of 2018) to submit that the learned appellate Judge was required to recall his own order and should have given the opportunity to the accused as an appellant to plead his case.

4. Countering the arguments, learned Advocate Mr. Dhruv Desai has submitted that the judgment has been declared on merits. The applicant had the recourse to challenge the same before the High Court under the revisional jurisdiction, if there had been any illegality or impropriety in declaring the judgment. Refe