Gujarat High Court
Sonabhai Thavrabhai Dhrangi vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 940
of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SONABHAI THAVRABHAI DHRANGI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. HARDIK SONI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 16/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. At the outset Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State applicant has placed on record a report of the Police Inspector, Poshina Police Station, wherein it has been stated that there are no antecedents against the applicants. 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 9 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 02:28:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
2. Present revision application is preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code assailing the correctness and validity of the order dated 30.7.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sabarkantha at Idar (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2016, which inter alia rejected the appeal preferred by the applicants and confirmed the judgment and order dated 5.5.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Poshina (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 243 of 2016 (Old Criminal Case No. 343 of 2008) 1155 of 2006 wherein the present applicants came to be convicted and sentenced for six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as applicant No.2 is concerned, he was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentence for simple imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.500/- The applicants were acquitted for the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Criminal Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 02:28:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined Revision Application is that First Information Report came to be registered for offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act wherein the present applicants were shown as accused. Pursuant to the First Information Report, investigation was conducted and charge-sheet came to be filed and the case was committed to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate at Poshina, which came to be numbered as Criminal Case No. 243 of 2016 (Criminal Case No. 343 of 2008). Charges were framed against the applicants and on completion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate at Poshina was pleased to convict the present revisionist- applicants by judgment and order dated 5.5.2017. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5.5.2017 passed by the trial Court, the present applicants preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned appellate Court being Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2016. The learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicants and confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court which has led to filing of present revision application.
Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 02:28:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
4. Heard Mr. Jigar Gadhvi, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. At the outset, Mr. Jigar Gadhvi, learned advocate for the applicants 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, that there are no antecedents against the present applicants, it may be in the fitness of things to grant benefit of probation to the applicants. He further submitted that at the time of filing the present revision application, the age of the applicant No.1 was 63 years and at present, he will be 72 years of age. Moreover, looking to the nature of injury, the benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, could be granted to the applicants.
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 Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 02:28:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined misreading of evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice. Therefore, there cannot be any infirmity with the impugned judgment and order. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code is a limited jurisdiction 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. The principles for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397, Cr.P.C. are enumerated in various judgments and particularly in case of State of Maharashtra Vs Jag Mohan Sing Kuldip Sing Anand and others, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659. The High Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. cannot exercise powers as a second Appellate Court and while exercising the revisonal power, cannot undertake in-depth and minute re- examination of entire evidence and upset findings of the Appellate court. There are concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court. It would be impermissible to taken an in- depth re-examination of the evidence recorded.
7. 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 Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 02:28:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined 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 applicants.
8. Section Procedure probation 360 deals of the Code Criminal offender 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 at once to suffer the punishment. As per sub-section (4) of Section 360, these Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 02:28:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined 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.
9. 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 Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 02:28:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined grant benefit of probation to the applicants. The order passed by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court are not required to be interfered with and they are hereby confirmed. However, looking to the age of applicant No.1, nature of incident and the antecedent of applicants, it would be proper to grant benefit of probation to the present 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.10,000/- each for good behaviour for a period of two years. The applicants shall further furnish surety of equivalent amount in addition to the personal bond as above. The applicants shall 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.
10. 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 Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 02:28:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined absolute accordingly.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) SAJ GEORGE Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 02:28:38 IST 2025