Gujarat High Court
Sagarbhai Laxmanbhai Jejaria vs State Of Gujarat on 19 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/563/2009 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 563 of 2009
==========================================================
SAGARBHAI LAXMANBHAI JEJARIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PS CHAMPANERI(214) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 19/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of filing the present application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant
- convict seeks acquittal by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.01.2007 passed in Criminal Case No. 457 of 2006 by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surendranagar as well as judgement and order dated 03.09.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Surendranagar.
2. By the aforesaid appellate judgement and order of conviction and sentence, the Revision applicant came to be held guilty and Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 19 22:50:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/563/2009 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined convicted for the offences punishable under sections 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and under Section 66(1)(A) and Section 66(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and consequently he had been ordered to undergo sentence as under:-
Section under Imprisonment Fine (Amount) In default of payment of fine Section 185 of SI for three Rs.500/- SI for 15 days M.V.Act months Section 66(1) SI for six Rs.500/- SI for 15 days (A) of Bombay months Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(B) SI for three Rs.250/- SI for 7 days of Bombay months Prohibition Act, 1949
3. Learned Advocate Mr.P.S.Champaneri for the applicant submits that the incident is of the year 2006 and the applicant has already paid the fines. The said fact is also confirmed by the learned APP Mr. Kathiriya. According to Mr. Champaneri, learned advocate, given the triviality of the offence and the long passage of time, no useful purpose will be served in sending the applicant back to jail. He has therefore requested to this Court that the suspension may be allowed.
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 19 22:50:44 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/563/2009 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined
4. Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya, learned APP for the respondent - State however opposes the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant and stating that irrespective of passage of time the applicant must serve out the entire sentence. He has therefore, requested this Court to dismiss the present application.
5. This Court however, is of the view that since the incident is of the year 2006 and the applicant has already spent some time in jail before he came to be released by this Court vide order dated 11.9.2009, the interests of justice will be sub-served if the conviction of the applicant is sustained. However, the sentence is reduced to already undergone inasmuch as after long period of time if the applicant is sent back to jail for an offence, which is not so grave in the eyes of this Court, there would be more harm caused to the society than the benefit that has been accrued in letting the present situation stand since 2009. The revision application has already been admitted by this Court on 18.03.2010. Hence, the prayer made by the applicant in the present application requires consideration. Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 19 22:50:44 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/563/2009 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined Consequently, the present application stands allowed to the extent that the conviction is maintained. The applicant's sentence, however, for the offences punishable under sections 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under Section 66(1)(A) and Section 66(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 is reduced to the period already undergone. Bail bond if any, stands cancelled. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(D.N.RAY,J) BINA SHAH Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 19 22:50:44 IST 2025