##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 2945 of 2026 ==========================================================

RAVI NAIR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR MADHAV KHURANA SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR ABHIK CHIMNI WITH MR RONITH JOY(9560) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN RAVAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR MITESH AMIN, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR BADRISH RAJU WITH MR DHANESH PATEL, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 02/11/2026

ORAL ORDER

By way of this revision application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.PC) read with Section 432 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS), the petitioner has sought to challenge the order passed below Exhibit-11 in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2026 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar dated 22/07/2026 rejecting the application seeking to produce the additional evidence.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision application are that a private complaint came to be lodged under the provisions of Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.PC and as per the allegations of the complainant that the petitioner is active on Twitter Handle and from October, 2020 to July, 2021 the petitioner had published a series of Twits which was scandalous, false, misleading, derogatory and defamatory in nature. It is further alleged that the petitioner also published the objectionable articles on www.adaniwatch.org which had caused huge damage to the reputation of the company and in consideration thereof, the material has been produced.

2.1 After the complaint came to be lodged, the learned Trial Court has recorded the evidence led before the Court and has held the petitioner guilty under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 255(2) of the Cr.PC.

2.2 The said order of conviction and sentence has been assailed before the learned first appellate Court where the Notice came to be issued. Meanwhile, on 26/05/2026 the petitioner – org. accused has preferred the application below Exhibit-11 seeking to produce the additional evidence which came to be rejected by an order dated 22/07/2026.

2.3 Under the aforesaid circumstances, the present revision application has been filed.

3.1 Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Madhav Khurana with Mr Abhik Chimni with Mr Ronith Joy, learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner has contended that the only links of documents vide Exhibit-46 to 60 were produced. It is the case of the petitioner that only after opening the links, screenshots/printouts of such documents are placed before the learned first appellate Court. It is further the case of the petitioner that the complainant has not produced the contents of the documents and disputed articles and without considering the source of the contents of the disputed material, no one can arrive at the plausible conclusion that it is a fake and objectionable material.

3.2 By placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asim @ Munmun @ Asif Abdulkarim Solanki v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 1098, it is prayed that for considering the actual articles/material published on the website, its printouts may be permitted to be produced as additional evidence and therefore it is prayed that the application filed under Section 391 may be heard without waiting for the appeal to be finally heard and further prayed to allow the application filed below Exhibit-11.

3.3 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Khurana with Mr.Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 3 of th