Gujarat High Court
Sadhu Kantilal Dhanjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 17 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 206
of 2018
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 207 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SADHU KANTILAL DHANJIBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YASH H JOSHI(6495) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK SONI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 17/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. 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, Lakhtar 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 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined
2. As Criminal Revision Application No. 206 of 2018 and Criminal Revision Application No. 207 of 2018 arise out of the same First Information Report and the same incident, the same is heard together by way of common judgment.
3. Pursuant to the First Information Report, two different charge sheets were filed by the Investigation Officer, which have resulted into two different Criminal Cases before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar and, therefor for the sake of brevity, the facts in Criminal Revision Application No. 206 of 2018 are taken on record.
4. The present revisionist applicant has preferred the revision application assailing the correctness and validity of the order dated 31.1.2018 passed by the learned 5 th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2011 which, inter alia, confirmed the order dated passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar in Criminal Case No. 7876 of 1996, whereby the revisionist applicant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467, 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 55(a) of the Indian Postal Act.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined
5. It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 1984-85, the accused was serving as sub post-master at post-office of village Dhaki, Taluka: Lakhtar, District: Surendranagar. He was performing the duty of maintaining the pass-books of account holder of fix- deposit and accordingly maintained the accounts and made credit and debit notes in relevant register and deposited the money to post- office. During the period of 7.5.1984 to 16.10.1985, it was alleged that the present revisionist-applicant collected the amount of fix- deposit of Rs.20,500/- from the account holders, but not deposited the said amount to office and misappropriated Rs.20,500/- for his personal use. It was alleged that he played mischief with the government documents and raised forged documents to falsify the documents and thereby committed the offence under Section 409, 467 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 55 of the Indian Postal Act.
6. Pursuant to the complaint of Sub-divisional Inspector, Postal Department, offence was registered at Lakhtar Police Station, vide C.R. No. I-91/85 against the revisionist applicant for the offence punishable under Section 467 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 55 of the Indian Postal Act for the misappropriation of the amount to the tune of Rs.20,500/- during the period from 7.5.1984 to Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined 16.10.1985. Pursuant to the registration of the First Information Report, charge-sheet came to be file. Pursuant to the filing of the charge-sheet, Criminal Case No. 7876 of 1996 came to be registered. However, during the course of trial, supplementary charge-sheet was filed alleging further misappropriation to the tune of Rs.70,000/- Therefore, total amount of Rs. 87,500/- was alleged against the present revisionist applicant for misappropriation towards government exchequer. Pursuant to the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet, a second case came to be registered being Criminal Case No. 7877 of 1996. On completion of both the Criminal Cases, the present revisionist applicant came to be convicted under Section 409 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for simple imprisonment for one year as well as convicted under Section 55(a) of the Indian Post Act and sentenced for simple imprisonment for three months.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 7876 of 1996 and 7877 of 2016, two appeals were preferred by the present revisionist applicant being Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2011. The learned Additional District Judge, Surendranagar by way of the impugned orders dismissed Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined both the Criminal Cases, which has culminated into Criminal Revision Applications.
8. At the outset, Mr. Yash Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant states at the bar that instead of arguing the case on merits and setting aside the orders on merits, and looking to 75 years of age of the applicant and the physical state of the applicant, it may be in the fitness of things to grant benefit of probation to the applicant.
9. 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 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. Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined
10. 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 yeas 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 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 Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined 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.
11. 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.5,000/- for good behaviour for a period of six months. 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 Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined breach, he shall appear and shall be required to receive the said sentence during such period as may be directed by the Court.
12. With the aforesaid directions and providence as above, both the Criminal Revision Applications succeed and same stand allowed to the aforementioned extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) SAJ GEORGE Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 03:14:00 IST 2025