Gujarat High Court
Mohammad Azam S/O Jalaluddin vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1737/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1737 of 2025
==========================================================
MOHAMMAD AZAM S/O JALALUDDIN
Versus
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITISH M NAIR(13998) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 19/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Issue Rule. Learned Special Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondent.
2. The present Revision Application has been preferred by the Applicant challenging the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Special Judge(CBI), Court No. 2, City and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in CBI SPCC No. 2 of 2022, whereby, the Ld. Judge has rejected the Application for discharge under Section 227 of the CRPC for the present Applicant under Section 239 of the CRPC.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present Criminal Revision Application are that :-
3.1 A complaint dated 05.10.2020 from the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad revealed a smuggling syndicate based in Vapi that had been importing gold in paste Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jan 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:47:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1737/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined form, 24-carat jewellery, and other goods from Dubai and Abu Dhabi through SVP International Airport by using air passengers as carriers. Acting on intelligence, DRI Ahmedabad intercepted two members of the syndicate Sahidul Chowdhary and Mansuri Mohamadsarfraz Mohmad on 27.06.2019 and recovered gold chains, gold paste yielding over 1.1 kg of pure gold, 10 kg of Iranian saffron, and 4000 pouches of Gutkha. Investigation established that the smuggled gold was intended for Sajahan Chowdhary of Vapi, who, along with his associates and foreign-
based accomplices, had been operating a large-scale smuggling racket involving gold and other commercial goods for months. Key members of this syndicate were arrested on 29.06.2019 under the Customs Act, 1962.
3.2 The DRI further uncovered that the smuggling activities were being facilitated by two Customs officers Somnath Chaudhary and Sujeet Kumar both then posted as Superintendents, Air Intelligence Unit, SVP International Airport, Ahmedabad. Evidence showed that Somnath Chaudhary had received illegal monetary consideration from the smugglers, and circumstantial evidence also implicated Sujeet Kumar. Sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been obtained to investigate them. The facts prima facie disclose offences of criminal conspiracy, obtaining and accepting undue advantage by public servants, and abetment of these offences by the said officers and others.
3.3 It is alleged that the syndicate of smugglers involved in this case hatched a well planned conspiracy for smuggling of gold in Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jan 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:47:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1737/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined various forms through carriers / air passengers by adopting novel modus operandi of concealing the Gold in paste form in such a way that the same are not to be detected by the Customs Authorities.
3.4 It has been alleged in the chargesheet that Shri Shamim Ahmad (A-6) of Dubai/Mumbai was the Master Mind and King pin of the Syndicate and he used to be instrumental in arranging Gold and Gold paste from Dubai. Shri Sajahan Chowdhury (A-3), Shri Sahidul Chaudhary (A-4) and Shri Mohammad Sarfaraz Mansuri (A-5), all from Vapi, Gujarat and Shri Mohammad AzamA-7) of Mumbai were knowingly and actively involved in the organized smuggling of Gold and other goods and used to exit from Green Channel of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, Ahmedabad to avoid and evade payment of applicable Customs duty in conspiracy with the Customs Officer, posted at Air Intelligence Unit (AIU). Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, Ahmedabad, namely Shri Somnath Chaudhary (A-1) and Shri Sujeet Kumar (A-2).
3.5 It has been further alleged in the chargesheet that Shri Shamim Ahmad was in close contact with Shri Mohammad Azam as they both belong to Azamgarh of Uttar Pradesh and they were classmate in Payam-e-Haq Madrasa in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh. Shri Shamim Ahınad was partner in M/s AL Faiez Alawal Tech Cont L.L.C, Post Box No. 43551 at Sharjah and he used to supply Labours of Uttar Pradesh, India in Dubai and UAE for Construction sites. During the year 2018, Shri Mohammad Azam had also joined him.
Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jan 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:47:54 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1737/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined 3.6 It has been further alleged in the chargesheet that while returning to India from Dubai, Shri Shamim Ahmad and Shri Mohammad Azam used to bring ladies suites, perfumes etc. intheir personal baggage, which they use to sale in Mumbai market to meet with the expenses of traveling.
3.7 It has been further alleged in the chargesheet that since family of Shri Shamim Ahmad was in Murabai, he frequently used to visit to India and during one such visit in November 2018) he arrived from Dubai at Ahmedabad International Airport, where one Customs Officer, checked his passport and upon checking the Passport he found that he had frequently visited to India from Dubai. During that meeting. the said Customs Officer introduced himself as Somnath Chaudhary and asked Shri Shamim Ahmad whether he was interested. in biinging any em from Dubai and offered Shri Shamim Ahmad that he will allow to bring items in India for which he is required to pay some monetary consideration to him. Shri Somnath Chaudhary also gave his mobile number (9913197989) to Shri Shamim Ahmad. At that time, Shri Shamim Ahmad was interested in bringing Gold in India from Dubai but Shri Somnath Chaudhary did not agree on that day and told him that he can bring any other items like Protein powder, Saffron, RMD etc, but since there was no much profit in these items, he did not pursue the said work.
3.8 It has been further alleged in the chargesheet that Shri Shamim Ahmad contacted Shri Somnath Chaudhary in the Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jan 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:47:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1737/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined month of February / March 2019 from his mobile number to mobile number 9913197989 of Shri Somnath Chaudhary and asked whether he can bring Gold from Dubai, on which Shri Somnath agreed for the same and demanded Rs. 25,000/- per passenger to facilitate them in carrying Gold / Gold items along with other items like saffron / RMD on arrival at Ahmedabad International Airport.It has been further alleged in the chargesheet that Shri Shamim Ahmad asked Shri Mohammad Azam to search for the persons, who were interested in investment for purchase of Gold from Dubai, for which Shri Mohd Azam contacted Shri Sajahan Chowdhury of Vapi, who was in the business of refining and trading of Gold and Silver bullion in the name of M/s Sadguru Touch Refinery and during meeting between Shri Shamim Ahmad, Shri Mohd Azam and Shri Sajahan Chowdhury in Mumbai, Shri Shamim Ahmad explained the scheme to Shri Sajahan Chowdhury to bring Gold from Dubai without paying any duty with the assistance of Shri Somnath Chaudhary, Customs officer (Chaudhary Saheb) for payment of Rs. 25000/- perpassenger. Since bringing of Gold in India without declaring and paying any duty i.e. smuggling was highly profitable, Shri Sajahjan Chowdhury showed his interest and accepted offer to invest fund for purchasing Gold from Dubai and they started bringing Gold through passengers at Ahmedabad International Airport with the help of Shri Somnath Chaudhary. It has been further alleged in the chargesheet that Shri Somnath Chaudhary also introduced Shri Shamim Ahmad personally with Shri Sujeet Kumar, Customs Officer, posted at Ahmedabad International Airport with Shri Somnath Chaudhary, when Shri Shamim Ahmad arrived at Ahmedabad Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jan 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:47:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1737/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined Airport on 16.05.2019 and told that Shri Sujeet Kumar would also facilitate their passengers whenever Shri Somnath Chaudhary is not present at the Airport.It has been further alleged in the chargesheet that as per the arrangement/ scheme, number of passengers, date and time of arrival was being decided by Shri Somnath Chaudhary. Also, Shri Shamim Ahmad used to inform Shri Somnath Chaudhary and Shri Sujeet Kumar about the details of the passengers reaching Ahmedabad International Airport along with Gold, saffron etc on their mobile number 9913197989 and 9726631383 respectively. Shri Shamim Ahmad used to send photographs of the passengers to Shri Somnath Chaudhary through whatsapp messages from his Whatsapp number 9892249474 to Shri Somnath Chaudhary's Whatsapp number 9913197989 Shri Mohd Azam was also in contact with Shri Somnath Chaudhary.
3.9 It has been further alleged in the chargesheet that Subscriber Data Records (SDR) and Call Details Records (CDR) of different Telecom Service Providers, established that Shri Somnath Chaudhary (using mobile number 9913197989) was in constant contact with Shri Shamim Ahmad using mobile number 8828263331 and 00971502275263), Shri Mohd Azam (using mobile number 8546075577) Shri Pankaj Mangnani (using mobile number 9898053373). Thus, the above mentioned acts of omissions and commission of all the above mentioned Accused persons constitutes Offences Punishable U/s 120-B of IPC r/w 420 IPC & U/Sec. 7, 8 & 12 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and substantive offences thereof. Therefore, on the aforesaid count on completion Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jan 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:47:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1737/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined of the investigation the charge sheet came to be filed before this Hon'ble Court against the accused persons including the present applicant.
3.10 In the above set of facts and circumstances, the applicant preferred the application for discharge under Section 227 of the CRPC challenging the impugned Order dated 29-05-2025 passed by the Hon'ble Special Judge [CBI], Court No. 2, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in CBI SPCC No. 02 of 2022 by way of this revision application.
4. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that :-
4.1. That no role is attributed to the present Applicant in the chargesheet and merely the Applicant was named by the co-
accused involved in the present offence, he has been arraigned as an accused without any iota of an evidence. 4.2 That the Applicant is involved in the business of Ladies Cosmetic Items and he has never indulged into smuggling of gold in any form of Gutkha or saffron as alleged in the chargesheet. 4.3 That the Applicant does not have any past antecedents or any criminal record or any other cases registered against them. That no prima facie case is made out against the present Applicant.
4.4 That the IO has recorded the statement of the various witnesses, none of the witnesses have stated anything about the present applicant and the prosecution is heavily relying upon the statement of two co-accused given before the DIR during investigation to implicate the present Applicant into the present offence.
Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jan 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:47:54 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1737/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined 4.5 That despite of absence of any cogent and substantial corroborated evidence against him the present applicant has been arraigned in the present case only on the basis of confessional statement of two co-accused given before the DRI during investigation.
4.6 That there is nothing to show that there was a meeting of mind or communication between the applicant with other accused for connivance to commit the present offence. 4.7 That the provisions of Prevention act are concerned the same are not applicable to the present applicant as they been the private individuals, and no iota of evidence available on record that they conspired to any of the government officials to commit an office. Thus, argued to allow the present application.
5. Per contra, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor Mr. R C Kodekar would submit that the applicant is unable to point out any palpable error apparent on the face of the record which requires interference at the hands of this Court, more particularly, when there is strong prima facie case against the present applicant and there is a systematic modus operandi where each individual is assigned specific role and thus, from the reading of the various statements appended with the chargesheet, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the present applicant, more particularly, considering the role attributed to the present applicant, the manner in which the entire crime has been perpetuated and the manner in which the entire transaction has been entered into, clearly brings out the complicity of the present applicant and thus, argued to reject.
Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jan 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:47:54 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1737/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
7. Learned advocate has relied upon the following judgments:-
(1) Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Srinivas D. Sridhar (2024 INSC
783) (2) Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2010 (9) SCC 368] (3) Sadaf Khan Vs. State of UP through Secretary Department Home.. (2024-AHC-LKO-31703) (4) Tarak Dash Mukharjee and others Vs. State of UP and others (2022 Live law SC 731) (5) Ram Prakash Chadha Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 INSC 522 ) (6) Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Dilip Mulani and another (2024 INSC 712) - non reportable
8. This Court has gone through the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Special Judge [CBI], Court No. 2, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in CBI SPCC No. 02 of 2022 below Exh. 117 rejecting the present applicant of the application in discharging him from the offence.
9. At the outset, the law governing the scope of hearing at the time of framing of charge is concerned is required to be taken into consideration as also in the case K.H.Kamaladini Vs. State reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1176, wherein, in para 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"9. In this case, the appellant sought discharge. The prayer for discharge was rejected by the Special Court. Therefore, a revision application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC was preferred by the Appellant. As far as the scope of hearing at the time of framing of charge is concerned, the law is well settled. Firstly, at this stage, the Court can examined only the documents forming part of the charge-sheet and no other material can be Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jan 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:47:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1737/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined considered. Secondly, after considering the material on record, the Court has to decide whether or not there exists a sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial against the Appellant. Thirdly, at this stage, the Court cannot shift the evidence forming a part of the charge-sheet with a view to separating the grain from the chaff. Fourthly, if the Court is of the view that the evidence without cross examination or rebuttal shows that the accused has not committed any offence, then an order of discharge must be passed. Lastly, if the evidence adduced before the Court, creates a grave suspicion against the accused the Court will not discharge the accused."
10. Based on the aforesaid principles, if the impugned order is tested on these principles, read with the papers appended along with the charge sheet, it cannot be said that there is no complicity of the present applicant in the alleged crime, more particularly when there is an allegation of conspiracy, in which there cannot be any direct evidence. However, a strong suspicion is raised against the present applicant based on the material brought on record by the prosecution, and it cannot be said that no grounds exist or that, merely on suspicion or conjecture, the charges are required to be framed.
11. The modus operandi adopted by the accused persons is neither plain nor simple. Unlike general cases, more than two persons are involved in the commission of the illegal act through illegal means. More particularly, the statements of PW-37, PW- 42, PW-43, PW-44, PW-45, PW-46, PW-47, PW-48, PW-49, PW- 50, and PW-51 clearly give rise to a grave suspicion against the present applicant with regard to his complicity in the alleged crime and the modus operandi adopted therein. Therefore, the involvement of the present applicant, along with the other co- accused, cannot be brushed aside by treating the case as one where there is no evidence at all for framing the charge.
Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jan 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:47:54 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1737/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined Further, the statement recorded under the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, reveals the manner in which the gold came to be smuggled in connivance with Customs officers. It also discloses the manner in which the amounts invested by Shamim Ahmad and Mohammad Azam, and the profits shared by them, were generated from the smuggled gold under the pretext of importing saffron and gutka from Dubai. Thus, if the evidences relied on by the prosecution goes unrebutted and in no circumstances can it be stated that the present applicant has not committed any offence and thus, grave suspicion against the accused is surfacing on record. Under such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the trial Court has committed error in rejecting the present application.
12. This Court has taken into account the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, however, at this stage, it would be profitable to refer the judgment in the case of Megh Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3184, it is held as under:-
"Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases or between two accused in the same case. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. It is more pronounced in criminal cases where the backbone of adjudication is fact based"
Thus, the judgment referred by the learned advocate for the applicant though are distinguishable on facts, however, the ratio laid down in said judgments are taken into consideration Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jan 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:47:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1737/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined while deciding the present Revision Application.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, the present Revision Application fails and thus, same stands rejected. Rule is discharged. The findings of this Court are prima facie for the purpose of deciding legality of the order rejecting the application for discharge, however, the Trial Court without being influenced by the observations made herein, shall proceed for trial in accordance with law.
(P. M. RAVAL, J) MMP Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jan 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:47:54 IST 2026