Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chandrasinh Bhavansinh Vihol on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1083/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO.
1083 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd/-
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHANDRASINH BHAVANSINH VIHOL
==================================================
Appearance:
MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KV SHELAT(834) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. SHYAM K SHELAT(6552) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] The present revision application is preferred assailing the validity of the order rendered below Exhibit '12' in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2016 on 21.07.2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, whereby the learned Appellate Court was pleased to confirm the order of conviction Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1083/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined against the respondent passed in Criminal Case No.1245 of 1989 on 12.08.2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"). However, the respondent was granted the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which is led to filing of the present revision application.
[2] Heard Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the applicant - State. Learned advocates Mr. K. V. Shelat and Mr. Shyam K. Shelat appearing for the respondent are not present. However, as the issue is with regard to the benefit given to the respondent under the Act, the present revision application is being decided on the basis of submissions made by Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
[3] The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision application is that the original complainant was serving as an Assistant Manager and the respondent being Junior Clerk make misappropriation of Item in the form of clothes to the tune of Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1083/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined Rs.6820.15/- and mentioned wrong number in the charge-list. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 420 and 409 of the IPC. Pursuant to the lodgement of the First Information Report and filing of the charge-sheet, charges were framed and the accused, i.e., respondent pleaded not guilty to the charges. Upon pleading of the evidence and hearing of the arguments, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by way of order dated 12.08.2016 in Criminal Case No.1245 of 1989 was pleased to convict the present respondent for offence punishable under Sections 465, 420 and 409 of the IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.1500. [3.1] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.08.2016, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, which came to be numbered as Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2016. By way of order dated 12.07.2017, below Exhibit '12', the learned Appellate Court was pleased to confirm the conviction and sentence of fine imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No.1245 of Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1083/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined 1989. However, the sentence was altered and the respondent was released on probation of good conduct on execution of bond of Rs.10,000/- looking to the age of respondent, who was 68 years of age at the relevant point of time, i.e., on 21.07.2017 as well as looking to the report of the Probation Officer. It is this relief granted by the learned Appellate Court which is challenged by the State Authority by way of preferring the present revision application.
[4] Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the applicant - State has submitted that the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is contrary to the facts of the case, arbitrary, and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It was submitted that the learned Appellate Judge ought to have considered that there was an act of forgery and cheating committed by the accused respondent and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Once the misappropriation of Rs.6820.15/- was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Appellate Court ought not to have the granted the benefit of provisions of Act to the respondent. It was further submitted that the prosecution has led detailed evidence against the respondent with regard to the Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1083/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined acquisition made against the respondent. There are cogent evidences against the respondent. Therefore, this was a case where the conviction ought to have been confirmed and the benefit of probation ought not to have been given to the respondent. [5] Having heard Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the applicant - State and having perused the material on record, it is not in dispute that the Probation Officer has given its report to the learned Appellate Court, wherein it was stated that the respondent was of good conduct and had no prior criminal antecedents. It was further observed that the respondent was 68 years old in the year 2017 and, therefore, would be approximately 75 years of age as of 2025. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the release of an offender on probation of good conduct or after admonition. It provides that when any person not under the age of 21 years is convicted for an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less and when any person under 21 years of age then the Court may having regard to the age of the offender, his character and his antecedents be released on probation of good conduct. Further, sub-section (4) of Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1083/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined Section 360 provides that the such powers can be exercised by the Appellate Court or by the High Court while exercising powers of revision. Similarly, Section 4 of the Act, thereof provides that the Court may release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. Having perused the material on record and the reasons given by the learned Appellate Court while granting probation to the respondent, no infirmity can be found in the reasoning adopted by the learned learned Appellate Court in granting the benefit of probation to the respondent.
[6] In view of the same, the present revision application, preferred by the State is meritless and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.) DHARMENDRA KUMAR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:26 IST 2025