Gujarat High Court
Kamuben Jushajee Thakore vs Bapujee Prahladjee Thakore on 17 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED
BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 777 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 544 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd/-
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==================================================
KAMUBEN JUSHAJEE THAKORE & ORS.
Versus
BAPUJEE PRAHLADJEE THAKORE & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DIPAK H SINDHI(5710) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,5
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR. BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 7
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 17/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] Heard Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 777 of 2022 and for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Criminal Revision Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined Application No. 544 of 2022. Mr. Dipak Sindhi, learned advocate has put in appearance for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in Criminal Revision Application No. 777 of 2022 and for the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 544 of 2022. Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned advocate has put in appearance for respondent No.6 in Criminal Revision Application No. 777 of 2022 and for respondent No. 4 in Criminal Revision Application No. 544 of 2022 and Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. [2] As both the revision applications pertain to a common order passed by the learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and arise from the same set of facts, both the revision applications are decided by this common order. As both the revision applications are from common facts, the parties are addressed as per cause title of Criminal Revision Application No.777 of 2022.
[3] Criminal Revision Application No.777 of 2022 is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") assailing the correctness and validity of order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2022.
[4] The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision application are that the revisionists - applicants are the original applicants who filed an application under Section 13 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial court") being Criminal Misc. Application No.3073 of 2020. The said application pertained to registration of death of Jushajee Malajee Thakore, who, according to the applicants was the husband of applicant No.1 and father of applicant Nos.2 and 3. The learned Magistrate, by way of order dated 25.06.2021, directed the Registrar, Birth and Death Registration, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad to register the date of death of the deceased Jushajee Malajee Thakore.
Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined [5] Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2021, the respondents preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Code before the learned appellate court. The criminal appeal came to be numbered as Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2022. The learned appellate court, by way of impugned order dated 20.05.2022, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned appellate court, the present revision application is preferred. Further, the respondents have also preferred another revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code, inter alia, praying to modify the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned appellate court. In addition to allowing the appeal and quashing the order passed by the trial court, it was further prayed that the learned appellate court may also file complaint against the revisionists - applicants of Criminal Revision Application No.777 of 2022. This revision application preferred by the respondents is numbered as Criminal Revision Application No. 544 of 2022. Therefore, both the revision Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined applications pertain to the common order by the learned appellate court.
[6] Heard Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the applicants and Mr. Dipak H. Sindhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondents and Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. [7] The only point of consideration raised by Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the applicants is that the learned appellate court has faltered by allowing the appeal which was preferred under Section 374 of the Code. The application preferred by the revisionists - applicants does not convict any of the respondents, and therefore, the impugned order was beyond the scope of section itself and was not maintainable.
[8] Per contra, Mr. Dipak H. Sindhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondents could not counter this proposition of law and categorically accepted that an appeal Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined under Section 374 of the Code was not maintainable. However, Mr. Sindhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondents tried to justify the order passed by the learned trial court on merits.
[9] Having gone through the impugned order and after taking into consideration the arguments canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the only point of consideration in the present revision application is whether the learned appellate court was justified in entertaining an appeal under Section 374 of the Code which inter alia assailed the order passed by the learned trial court allowing the application under Section 13 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969. For ready reference, Section 13 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 and Section 374 of the Code are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"13. Delayed registration of births and deaths.--(1) Any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified therefor, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed.Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined (2) Any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government.
(3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee.
(4) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to any action that may be taken against a person for failure on his part to register any birth or death within the time specified therefor and any such birth or death may be registered during the pendency of any such action."
Section 374 of the Code provides as under:-
"Section 374. Appeals from convictions.--(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined than seven years 2 [has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,--
(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or
(b) sentenced under section 325, or
(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session."
[10] After reproducing both provisions, it becomes evident that the categories prescribed under Section 374 of the Code pertains to an appeal of a person convicted on a trial held by Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or someone is sentenced under Section 325 or if the order in respect of sentence passed under section 360 by any Magistrate. Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined [11] In the instant case, the learned trial court, i.e., the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court has passed an order under Section 13 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969. The said order, which is appended at page Nos. 22 to 25 categorically observed that the death of deceased Jushajee Malajee Thakore, which happens on 23.06.1980 may be registered. Such order cannot be assailed by preferring an appeal under Section 374 of the Code, which clearly reveals that it is against any order of conviction on a trial held by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court. That being not the case, the arguments as canvassed by Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the applicants deserves to be accepted. Even, Mr. Dipak H. Sindhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondents was not in a position to counter such arguments. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2022 preferred under Section 374 of the Code is required to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. Criminal Revision Application No. 777 of 2022 is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined [12] Pursuant to the quashment of the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2022, the prayers as prayed by the respondents in Criminal Revision Application No. 544 of 2022 would not survive. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Application No. 544 of 2022 is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.) DHARMENDRA KUMAR Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:12 IST 2025