11 July 2025 Education >> Miscellaneous  

In a significant ruling of Amitkumar Surendrabhai Chaudhary v/s State Of Gujarat & Another, the High Court has partially allowed a revision application, affirming the lower court's decision to set aside the acceptance of a "B" summary report in a case involving an alleged IELTS examination scam. The court has directed a fresh consideration of the summary report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, but has quashed a specific directive that mandated the Magistrate to ask the Director General of Police for the appointment of a new investigative officer.

Background of the Case:

The case stems from an FIR filed in September 2022 against 45 accused persons under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including sections related to cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The FIR was lodged after four individuals, who had illegally entered the United States, were found to have secured high bands in the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) examination despite their inability to understand or speak English. This raised suspicions of fraudulent activities in securing IELTS certificates for Canadian student visas.

The initial investigation was conducted by different police officers. Subsequently, Dy.S.P. Dinesh Chauhan submitted a "B" summary report in April 2023, concluding that there was insufficient evidence against the accused and that the Mehsana police lacked jurisdiction as the offense was purportedly committed in Navsari. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, accepted this report.

However, the State challenged this decision before the Sessions Court, Mehsana. The Additional Sessions Judge, in an order dated May 9, 2025, quashed and set aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order, rejecting the "B" summary report. The Sessions Judge remitted the case back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for an appropriate order and also directed the Magistrate to ask the Director General of Police, Gujarat State, to appoint an "honest and competent" police officer for further investigation, considering the objections raised by the original first informant.

Applicant's Contentions and Court's Analysis:

The applicant, accused no. 1 in the FIR, challenged the Sessions Court's order, arguing that it was beyond the revisional court's power to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate in such a manner. The applicant also pointed out alleged factual errors in the Sessions Court's order, such as mentioning a "Commissioner of Police, Mehsana" (a non-existent post) and referring to the "Bombay Police Manual" instead of the "Gujarat Police Manual." Furthermore, it was contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had appropriately considered all objections and even called for a DFS (Directorate of Forensic Science) report.

The High Court acknowledged the typographical errors regarding the "Commissioner of Police, Mehsana" and the "Bombay Police Act," deeming them minor and not sufficient to invalidate the entire judgment.

The core of the High Court's analysis focused on two main aspects considered by the Additional Sessions Judge:

1. Sanction from Higher Officers: The Sessions Judge had noted that the investigating officer, Mr. Chauhan, had not obtained the necessary sanction from his higher officers before submitting the final report, as per Section 232 of the Gujarat Police Manual and a circular issued by the Director General of Police. The High Court concurred, emphasizing that such reports should be submitted through the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and that higher officers have a role in reviewing the investigation and deciding on further action. The court noted Mr. Chauhan's swift conclusion of the investigation within two months and his failure to properly investigate crucial aspects, such as the handwriting expert's opinion which indicated that the accused's handwriting did not match the answer sheets.
2. Consideration of Objections: The Sessions Judge found that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had accepted the "B" summary report without fully considering the objections raised by the original first informant, Mr. B.H. Rathod, which highlighted ample evidence found during the investigation. The High Court agreed with this finding, pointing out that crucial investigative steps, such as a thorough examination of how the accused qualified for the IELTS examination despite their lack of English proficiency and why natural handwriting samples were not taken, were overlooked.

High Court's Decision:

Based on its review, the High Court found no illegality in the revisional court's decision to set aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate's acceptance of the "B" summary report and to remit the matter for fresh consideration. The court affirmed this part of the order, stating that the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge were "just and proper."

However, the High Court took exception to the specific direction issued by the Additional Sessions Judge to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The High Court ruled that directing a judicial officer to mandate the Director General of Police to appoint a new, "honest and competent" police officer for further investigation was not legally sound and trespassed upon the domain of the concerned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders. This particular directive was therefore quashed and set aside.

Conclusion:

As a result, the revision application was partially allowed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, is now mandated to decide Summary Report No. 1 of 2023 afresh, without being influenced by the observations made by either the High Court or the Additional Sessions Judge, and strictly in accordance with the law. This ruling underscores the importance of thorough investigation and proper adherence to procedural norms in criminal cases, particularly when a "B" summary report is filed.

Section 438, BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA - 2023  

Section 442, BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA - 2023  

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023  

Section 406., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 420., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 465, Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 467., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 468., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 471., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860