Gujarat High Court
Abdulbhai Alias Jamadar Jamalbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 3 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 483
of 2016
==========================================================
ABDULBHAI ALIAS JAMADAR JAMALBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSH N PAREKH(6951) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. BHARGAV PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 03/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Present revision application is preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 21.6.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court') which, inter alia, confirmed the judgment and order dated 11.9.2015 in Criminal Case No. 168 of 2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gariyadhar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 25(1-
b)(a) of the Arms Act and further sentenced of 1 year of imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- was imposed on the Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:02:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined revisionist-applicant.
2. The brief facts giving rise of filing of the present revision application is that it is the case of the applicant that the applicant was working as a Jamadar and farmer at farm owned by one Shri Ramkubhai Devkubhai. On 30.5.2012, an information was received by Police and, therefore, they raided the farm of Shri Ramkubhai Devkubhai along with two panchas. During the time of raid, present revisionist applicant being the sole accused was present and he took the police personal to his hut and handed over a locally made gun to the Officer. Pursuant to the raid and incident in question, First Information Report (FIR) came to be registered being II- C.R. No. 46 of 2012 under Section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court which culminated into registration of the criminal case, which came to be numbered as Criminal Case No. 168/2013.
3. On perusing the material on record and after Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:02:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined conclusion of the argument, the learned trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 11.9.2015, convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-
b)(a) of the Arms Act and was pleased to impose sentence of one year. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, an appeal came to be preferred by the present applicant before the appellate Court, which came to be numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2015. By way of the impugned order dated 21.6.2016, the learned appellate Court was pleased to confirm the order passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court, the present revision application is preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Having heard Mr. Harsh Parekh, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
5. At the outset, it is being contended by Mr. Harsh Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:02:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined Parekh, learned advocate for the applicant that instead of proceeding with the merits of the matter, the benefit of the probation may be extended to the present applicant looking to the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
6. Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that as per the report dated 1.4.2025 by the Police Inspector, Gariyadhar Police Station, there are no antecedents qua the present revisionist-applicant and if the Court may deem fit, appropriate orders may be passed granting benefit of probation to the present revisionist applicant.
7. It is not in dispute that by way of evidence recorded and the testimony of the Police Officer, the Arm in dispute is recovered from the present revisionist applicant. Looking to the orders passed by learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code is a limited jurisdiction Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:02:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined exercisable if the courts below has committed a manifest illegality or the findings are perverse and based on misreading of evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice. Keeping in view the parameters of the revisional jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Courts below and the concurrent findings arrived at were proper, they were factual in nature. The factum of panchas turning hostile and the offence being proved by the Police officers, cannot be gone into in present revisionist-applicant. In the alternative, when the learned advocate for the applicant has submitted to grant benefit of probation to the present applicant, the same may be considered. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with releasing an offender on probation of good conduct and after admonition, the Section says that when any person not under 21 years of age is convicted for an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, the Court may depending upon his character, antecedents as well as the circumstances in which the offence is committed, Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:02:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined finds it expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may so direct instead of requiring him at once to suffer the punishment. As per sub-section (4) of Section 360, these powers can be exercised by the appellate court or by the High Court while exercising powers of revision.
8. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the arm in question is recovered at the behest of applicant while taking the police officer in his hut. There are no antecedent against the present applicant. The farm on which the hut was located also belong to Shri Ramkubhai Devkubhai. However, without going into all these aspects, the underlying object for releasing the offender on probation of good conduct after his conviction and deal with him leniently in respect of the sentence, is in tune with the reformative theory of punishment. The object is to provide an opportunity to the offender to reform himself. The courts have also held that while sentencing a person, the sentencing court must apply its mind and application of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:02:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined Procedure or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act should be allowed a fair play and keeping in mind an opportunity to the offenders to reform himself. In view of the same, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the benefit of probation needs to be granted to the present applicant.
9. Therefore, instead of requiring the applicant- revisionist to undergo sentence of imprisonment at once, he is directed to be released on probation of good conduct on execution of bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) for good behaviour for a period of one years. The applicant shall further furnish surety of equivalent amount in addition to the personal bond as above. The applicant shall remain in supervision for good conduct for the said period of one year and sentence imposed on him as per the order impugned shall remain suspended during that period. It is further directed that in the event of any breach, he shall appear and shall be required to receive the said sentence during such period as may be directed by the Court.
Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:02:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined
10. With the aforesaid directions and providence above, present Criminal Revision Application succeeds and the same is allowed making Rule absolute accordingly. Office shall send back the Record and Proceedings to the Court concerned.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) SAJ GEORGE Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:02:46 IST 2025