Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai Ishwarbhai Raval vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/850/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 850
of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes
No
✔
==================================================
PRAVINBHAI ISHWARBHAI RAVAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
At the outset Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State applicant has placed on record the report of the Police Inspector, Bhiladi Police Station, wherein it has been stated that there are no antecedents against the applicant. It is also stated by Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there are no subsequent offences reported against the applicant.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/850/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined
2. As far as the present application is concerned, the revisionist applicant challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 28.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellate court") in Criminal Appeal no. 16 of 2012 which inter alia confirmed the order dated 08.05.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa in Criminal Case No. 3390 of 2011, whereby the revisionist applicant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 511 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of nine months and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present application is that the respondent no. 2 herein lodged a complaint being First Information Report bearing C.R. No. I-50 of 2011 against the revisionist applicant on 02.09.2011 with Bhiladi Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 379, 511 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed and charge came to be framed. Pursuant thereto, Criminal Case No. 3390 of 2011 came to be tried against the present revisionist applicant. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa was pleased to convict the accused by order dated Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/850/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined 08.05.20212 as aforestated.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction pased by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa, the present applicant preferred appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned appellate court, being Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2012. The learned appellate court vide order dated 28.07.2012 was pleased to upheld the order of conviction and dismissed the appeal preferred by the present applicant, which is assailed in the present application.
5. At the outset, Mr. Ankit Bachani, learned advocate for the applicant states at the bar that without going into the merits and in view of the statement made by Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it may be in the fitness of things to grant benefit of probation to the applicant. He further submitted that the issues are trivial in nature and and therefore, benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be granted to the applicant.
6. It is true that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has limited jurisdiction which can be exercisable if the court below has committed a manifest illegality or Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/850/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined the findings are perverse and based on misreading of evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice. Therefore, there cannot be any infirmity with the impugned judgment and order. However, Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with releasing an offender on probation of good conduct, with regard to his age, character as well as the incident and antecedents, then the underlying object for releasing the offender after conviction is to be dealt with leniently in respect of his sentence, is in tune with the reformative theory of punishment. It is also stated by learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of instructions received that there are no antecedents of the applicant.
7. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with releasing an offender on probation of good conduct or 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 of less or when any person under 21 years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable death or imprisonment for life and no previous conviction was proved against the offender, the Court may having regard to the age of the offender, his character and his antecedents as well as the circumstances in which the offence is Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/850/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined committed, 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. Similarly in Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4 thereof provides that the Court may release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. According to Section 4(1), when any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not publishable with death or imprisonment of life, the Court may release him on probation of good conduct. Sub-section (2) provides that while granting the benefit, the Court shall take into account Report, if any, of the Probation Officer concerned in relation to the case. The underlying object by the provision 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 held that while sentencing a person, the sentencing court must apply its mind and application of Section 360 of the Code or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act should be allowed a fair play. In Savaldas Ghumamal Vs State of Gujarat being Criminal Appeal No.361 of 1998 decided on 04.04.2011, this Court Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/850/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined granted benefit of probation of good conduct to the appellant of that case who was convicted and sentenced for the offence under the Essential Commodities Act, by taking into consideration amongst other facts the lapse of 13 years in the proceedings. The Court observed that in each case the Court should not be enthusiastic to see that each order of punishment should be carried out just for the sake of deterrence and held that the trial court ought to have given the offender the benefit of probation.
8. In view of the above, looking to the nature of offence and the duration of offence, it would be in the fitness of things to grant benefit of probation to the applicant. Therefore, instead of requiring the applicant to undergo the sentence of imprisonment at once, he is directed to be released on probation of good conduct on execution of bond of Rs.25,000/- for good behaviour for a period of three years. The applicant shall further furnish surety of equivalent amount in addition to the personal bond as above. The applicant shall remain in supervision of good conduct for the said period and the 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 6 of 7 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/850/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined
9. With the aforesaid directions and providence as above, the present Criminal Revision Application succeeds and same is made allowed to the aforementioned extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) phalguni Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:42 IST 2025