Gujarat High Court
Chaudhary Kanjibhai Becharbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION)
NO. 445 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd/-
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==================================================
CHAUDHARY KANJIBHAI BECHARBHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAVI MANDALIA, ADVOCATE FOR MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] Heard Mr. Ravi Mandalia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Pratik B. Barot, learned advocate for the revisionists - applicants and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State. Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined [2] The present revision application is preferred assailing the correctness and validity of the judgment and order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2015 which inter alia confirmed the judgment and order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana in Criminal Case No. 1140 of 2003.
[3] The brief facts giving rise to the present application is that it is the case of the prosecution that the three revisionists - applicants were entering the functions and duty of the complainant being the Deputy Engineer at Gujarat Electricity Board and who was a public servant. On the date of incident, when the Deputy Engineer of the Gujarat Electricity Board, i.e., the complainant was along with entire staffs and had gone to disconnect the electricity connections of applicant No.1, then a great resistance was shown by the revisionists - applicants and they had harassed complainant and, therefore, obstructed in discharge of duties of complainant. This led to filing of the First Information Report. Subsequently, after the filing of the charge- Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined sheet and framing of the charge, the learned 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana in Criminal Case No.1140 of 2003 held the revisionists - applicants guilty of offence punishable under Section 186 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to one month of imprisonment.
[3.1] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of convocation and sentence, the revisionists - applicants preferred a criminal appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2015 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, which came to be dismissed by way of order dated 20.04.2017. Being further aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, as well as learned 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana, present Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred. [4] Before going into the merits of the matter, Mr. Ravi Mandalia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Pratik B. Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined Barot, learned advocate for the applicants has contended that as the applicants have been convicted only for a period of one month and offence is trivial in nature, it may be in the fitness of things to grant benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the applicants. [5] Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State has submitted that there was no other antecedents qua the present applicants and in view of the same, appropriate order may be passed. [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 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 antecedents, Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined 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 applicants.
[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 committed, finds it expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may so direct instead of requiring him Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined 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 Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined Ghumamal Vs State of Gujarat being Criminal Appeal No.361 of 1998 decided on 04.04.2011, this Court 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 applicants. Therefore, instead of requiring the applicants to undergo the sentence of imprisonment at once, they are directed to be released on probation of good conduct on execution of bond of Rs.5,000/- each for good behaviour for a period of six months. The applicants shall further furnish surety of equivalent amount in addition to the personal bond as above. The applicants shall Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined remain in supervision of good conduct for the said period and the sentence imposed on them as per the order impugned shall remain suspended during that period. It is further directed that in the event of any breach, they shall appear and shall be required to receive the said sentence during such period as may be directed by the Court.
[9] With the aforesaid directions and providence as above, the present Criminal Revision Application succeeds to the aforementioned extent and same is allowed to the aforementioned extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.) DHARMENDRA KUMAR Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:32 IST 2025