JUDGMENT : M.R. MENGDEY, J. 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. 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 panel of Yatra Coin was with the other co-accused who was generating IDs for Yatra Coin and no new investor’s IDs were generated on the Yatra Coin. The applicant had handed over all the access and authority over the Yatra Coin to the co-accused Dinesh Gadhvi. Thus, the applicant had no control whatsoever over the software or website as it was handed over by him to the other co-accused, nor the applicant had any access or authority to the said software or website. The applicant had handed over all the access and authority over the Yatra Coin to the co-accused Dinesh Gadhvi. Thus, the applicant had no control whatsoever over the software or website as it was handed over by him to the other co-accused, nor the applicant had any access or authority to the said software or website. Thus, the present applicant had not played any active role in commission of the offence in question nor there is any material in whatsoever form attracting the offences lodged in the FIR against the present applicant. Moreover., there is no sufficient material in the investigation papers to prosecute the present applicant for those offences. He therefore submitted to allow the present application by quashing the impugned order and discharging the present applicant from the charges levelled against him. 4.4 Learned advocate for the applicant has sought to rely upon following judgments in support of his submissions. (1) Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Cr. Appeal No. 3816 of 2023 (2) Sashikant Sharma v State of U.P. Cr. Appeal No. 3663 of 2023 (3) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 7 SCC 337 (4) Ratuji Varvaji Vadhela v. State of Gujarat, 2008 SCC Online Guj 427 (5) Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 10 SCC 394 (6) Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 (7) Aruna v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2013 SCC Online Mad 844 (8) Dhanraj Kevalram Rajaji v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No. 900 of 2001 (decided on 04.10.2001 by Gujarat High Court) (9) Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr. (1996) 9 SCC 766 (decided on 31.07.1996) (10) Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 1 (decided on 03.10.2008) (11) Nirod Kumar Das v. State of Odisha, 2024 SCC Online Ori 1375 (decided on 01.05.2024) (12) Vijaybhai Saujibhai Leuva v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Revision Application No. 595 of 1997 (13) Sharif Ahmed and Anr. v. State of Uttarpradesh and Anr. 2024 (2) GLH 779 (14) V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 361 (15) A.M. Mohan v. State Represented by SHO and Anr. 2024 SCC Online Selection Committee 339 (16) Parvat Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttarpradesh and Anr. 2024 (2) GLH 779 (14) V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 361 (15) A.M. Mohan v. State Represented by SHO and Anr. 2024 SCC Online Selection Committee 339 (16) Parvat Singh & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 2020 and Arising Out of SLP (Cri.) No. 9252 of 2018 (17) Sanju Bansal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 10536 of 2023 (18) Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, (2020) 10 SCC 274 5. Learned APP has opposed the present application inter alia contending that the present application in its present form is not maintainable as the order which is under challenge in the present application is an interlocutory order and therefore, a revision application, as per the provisions of BNSS is not maintainable against an interlocutory order. He further submitted that the present applicant has been specifically named as an accused in the FIR which had been lodged by the first informant in the year 2019. From the material collected during the course of investigation, it appears that the applicant herein has played a pivotal role in commission of the offence in question. Moreover, there is more than sufficient material available against the present applicant for having committed the offence in question and there is enough material to prosecute the present applicant in the said offence. The record further indicates that there are several victims in the present offence and the applicant herein had cheated the victims in this fraud for an amount more than Rs.62 lacs, which is not a small amount. The total fraud is amounting to Rs.43,18,99,167/-. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application. 6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. Since, learned APP has opposed the maintainability of the present application on the ground that the order impugned in the present application is an interlocutory order, the aspect of maintainability is required to be decided at the threshold. 6.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (16) SCC 299 , had held that “an order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. 6.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (16) SCC 299 , had held that “an order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. The jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of a label of the petition be it under Sections 397 or 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” In view of the aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the issue whether the order rejecting the application seeking discharge is an interlocutory order or not, is no more res integra. Thus, the aspect of maintainability of the present application is required to be decided in favour of the present applicant. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the very same judgment has cautioned that “...the jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus, considered, the challenge to an order of charge would be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter.” Thus, the scope for this court to interfere with the impugned order in the present application is very limited. The merits of the matter are required to be examined in this background. 6.2 For determining the aspect as to whether there is sufficient material available on record for prosecuting the present applicant in the offence in question, the statements of several witnesses recorded during the course of investigation require consideration. One such witness is Divyangbhai Kanubhai Bhimani. He in his statement dated 5.11.2019 has stated that Yatra Coin in the website named My POWERYATRA had been created by the present applicant and he happened to meet the present applicant in Thailand through one co-accused Dinesh Gadhvi. He in his statement also stated that the co-accused Dinesh Gadhvi knew the present applicant very well. 6.3 Another witness namely Jagdishkumar Virabhai Pandya, in his statement dated 21.8.2020 has stated that the co-accused Dinesh Gadhvi used to come to him for understanding the dealings in the crypto blockchain and there used to be discussion between them about the same. He in his statement also stated that the co-accused Dinesh Gadhvi knew the present applicant very well. 6.3 Another witness namely Jagdishkumar Virabhai Pandya, in his statement dated 21.8.2020 has stated that the co-accused Dinesh Gadhvi used to come to him for understanding the dealings in the crypto blockchain and there used to be discussion between them about the same. The applicant herein had gone to Estonia with the other co-accused Dinesh Gadhvi and had lured the said co-accused Dinesh Gadhvi for investments and partnership in the Yatra Coin company which was to be established in Estonia. The applicant herein had taken over the responsibility of MLM software, listing of coins in exchange, training, marketing, employment of foreign staff etc. and had demanded 1,25,000$ for the said purposes, which was paid to him. His Indian representative namely Varun Vashisth Kusuma had developed the Yatra Coin software and website upon instructions of the present applicant. Since, the software which was developed by the applicant and the coins had stuck, despite payment of money to him, the co-accused Dinesh Gadhvi had gone to Bangkok to meet the present applicant in the month of August, 2019. In the meeting which had taken place between the two, one Dinesh Gadhvi had asked the applicant to start the software/website/server. The said meeting had taken place between the two at Bawarchi restaurant in Bangkok. The applicant herein had demanded more money for resolving the issues, as the system had stuck. However, no breakthrough was achieved in the said meeting and therefore the co-accused Dinesh Gadhvi sought help from the witness Jagdishkumar Virabhai Pandya for compromise between the two. 6.3.1 The witness, further states that he was in the business of event management and was entrusted a job of organizing an event in the name of crypto currency expo in the year 2017-2018 and was also offered a partnership in global crypto hub in Thailand. The accounts of the said partnership firm were being maintained by the present applicant. In the year 2018, he had organized an event at Mahatma Mandir, Gandhinagar in the month of January, wherein the applicant herein had offered him to invest in Asian blockchain event and upon said offer being made, he had invested 50,000$ with the present applicant. The said investment was to be made in Philippines. In the year 2018, he had organized an event at Mahatma Mandir, Gandhinagar in the month of January, wherein the applicant herein had offered him to invest in Asian blockchain event and upon said offer being made, he had invested 50,000$ with the present applicant. The said investment was to be made in Philippines. It was also offered by the present applicant that an event will be organized in a city of Philippines, wherein the daughter of the President of Philippines would remain present. Out of the amount of 50,000$, the expenditure only to the tune of 10,000$ had been incurred by the present applicant and the remaining 40,000$ had been pocketed by the present applicant. Thereafter, despite having been asked to repay the said amount, the applicant had repaid only 3,000$. He further states in his statement that in the similar manner, the applicant had asked the co-accused Dinesh Gadhvi to invest in Yatra Coin and huge loss was caused to him. He also stated that the said Dinesh Gadhvi was made to sign an agreement taking advantage of his poor knowledge of English. 6.4 The investigating agency has recorded the statement of another witness namely Chandrakant Mavjibhai Viramgama. He in his statement dated 26.9.2020 stated that he had invested 5,000$ in POWERBT COIN and in return, he was offered a trip to Thailand by the company and thus, he had visited Thailand in the year 2018. There were other 106 members with him. The expenditure in the said trip was born by POWERBT company. At that time, the expo was organized in Thailand wherein one person namely Shahin Noble Pilli i.e. the present applicant had told that Yatra Coin would be generated from POWERBT coin. All these Yatra Coin could be used in India and Thailand for shopping and other services. He had further stated that he would develop Yatra Coin by partnership at the share of 25% and he had developed several other coins in past. The value of which had appreciated several times. Upon these promise being made by the present applicant, the said witness believed that there was huge profit in the said coins and therefore decided to purchase the Yatra Coin. 6.5 The other persons who were with him in the tour to Thailand namely Dharmang Pandya, Parag Doshi, Jayesh Dalwadi, etc. The value of which had appreciated several times. Upon these promise being made by the present applicant, the said witness believed that there was huge profit in the said coins and therefore decided to purchase the Yatra Coin. 6.5 The other persons who were with him in the tour to Thailand namely Dharmang Pandya, Parag Doshi, Jayesh Dalwadi, etc. had gone to the office of the present applicant at Bangkok and during the said visit, the applicant had assured that the office of Power Yatra and Yatra Coin would be established there only and another branch would be opened in Estonia in near future. 7. Upon perusal of the aforesaid statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation it appears that it is not correct on part of the present applicant that his involvement in the company in question had started only after October- November, 2018. The aforementioned statements also indicate that the applicant herein was very much involved with the company in question prior to the year 2018. The perusal of the aforementioned statements also indicate that it was the present applicant who was the mastermind in commission of the offence in question. The applicant had also lured various investors to invest their hard-earned money in the crypto coins which had been created by him. The investors have been put to huge loss after they had invested their money in the coins which was developed by the present applicant. 7.1 The role of the present applicant does not appear to be limited only to the extent of developing the coins. As observed earlier, the applicant appears to be mastermind in the present offence. In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned Special Court, Rajkot does not appear to have committed any error, muchless a jurisdictional error in dismissing the application for discharge filed by the present applicant. Even, learned advocate appearing for the present applicant is at loss to point out any such error having committed by the Special Court, Rajkot and therefore, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. (supra), there is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment, in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment, in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao has observed as under in Para 7: “It is trite law that application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed.” 9. It is sought to be contended by learned advocate for the applicant that since the crypto currency is not money and since the applicant is not responsible for day to day affairs of the company in question, the offence punishable under the provisions of GPID Act is not made out against the present applicant. Even if the said statement made by learned advocate appearing for the applicant is accepted at its face value, the fact remains that the present applicant had lured the victims to invest their money in the coins which were developed by him and the said investment had resulted into a huge loss and also the fact that the amount invested by the victims had been pocketed by the present applicant and therefore, it is not possible for this court to come to a conclusion, at this stage, that the offence punishable under the GPID Act is not made out against the present applicant. 10. 10. Learned advocate for the applicant has also sought to rely upon various judgments referred to herein above and there can be no quarrel with the propositions of law laid down in the said judgments. However, in view of the facts stated herein above, these judgments would rendered of no help to the case of the present applicant. Learned advocate for the applicant relying upon several judgments has also sought to canvass that while deciding the application for discharge, the material produced by the accused can also be taken into consideration. However, as per the settled legal position, more particularly observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (supra), that at the stage of discharge, the trial Judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in the order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on the basis of charge-sheet. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations, the material which is sought to be relied upon by the present applicant in his defence is not required to be considered while deciding an application for discharge. 12. Having regard to the same, no case is made out to exercise discretion in favour of the present applicant. Accordingly, the present Revision Application is dismissed.