Gujarat High Court
Ashok Kumar Kantilal vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 02.07.2025
Pronounced On : 01/10/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 615
of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ASHOK KUMAR KANTILAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JV JAPEE(358) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 01/10/2025
1. The present revision application has been preferred by the present appellant-original accused, challenging the order dated 30.07.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1, Bhavnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2002, dismissing the conviction appeal of Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined the present applicant and confirming the judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vallabhipur (Dist. Bhavnagar) in Criminal Case No. 284 of 1996, convicting the present applicant -accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentencing him to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. For the offence punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to undergo 7 days' simple imprisonment. For the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. For the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment. For the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo 4 days' simple imprisonment. For the offences under Sections 177 and 184 of the MV Act, the same being covered by Section 279 of the IPC, no separate sentence was awarded. For the offence under Section 134 of the MV Act, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo 4 days' simple imprisonment.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. J.V. Jappee for the applicant -accused. It is submitted by him that the learned trial Court as well as the Appeal Court have not properly appreciated the oral evidence and have erred in coming to the conclusion that the present applicant was driving his ST bus in a rash and negligent manner and thereby, committed Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined the offence. It is further submitted that from the evidence, it has come on record that the motor-cycle was being driven by the witnesses on the wrong side and dashed with the ST bus, and because of this, the accident took place and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the present applicant. It is further submitted that the conductor of the ST bus has also been examined as a witness and has specifically stated that the motor-cycle was coming on the wrong side and because of that, the incident took place. Despite this fact, the said evidence has not been properly considered by the Courts below and hence, the judgments of the learned trial Court and the Appeal Court are required to be quashed and set aside.
2.1. Further, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that as per Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the time of the accident, the present applicant, who was a Government servant, was driving a Government vehicle and during the course of discharge of his official duty, the accident took place. Therefore, sanction Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined for prosecution was necessary, but the prosecution has not obtained any sanction and on this legal point also, the present revision application is required to be allowed. Further, in support of his submissions, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.K.Pradhan Vs. State of Sikkim, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 704.
3. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Mr.H.K. Patel has vehemently opposed the present revision application. It is submitted that in the present case, there are concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Magistrate Court as well as the Sessions Court and considering the findings recorded by both the Courts below, no illegality as such, has been committed. Hence, the present revision application is devoid of merits. It is further submitted that the present applicant was the driver and his duty was only to drive the ST bus, and for that, the bar under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not come into play. It is also submitted that this plea was never raised before the Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined learned trial Court or the Appellate Court and for the first time, it has been raised in the present revision application and therefore also, the present revision application deserves to be dismissed.
4. The factual matrix of the case is required to be considered at this stage. As per the complaint, the FIR came to be lodged by Batukbhai Vashrambhai before Vallabhipur Police Station, 'A' Division, Bhavnagar, on 12.09.1996. As per the case of the prosecution, at about 15:45 hours on the Bhavnagar-Ahmedabad Highway near Limda Dhal, the accused was driving ST bus bearing registration No. GJ-18- V-272 from Barwala to Vallabhipur in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motor-cycle of the complainant bearing registration No.GJ-4B-663. Because of that, the complainant Batukbhai Vashrambhai sustained fracture injuries, witness Vipul Vashrambhai sustained injuries on his right leg and Jashuben, wife of the complainant, also sustained serious injuries. She was taken to Bhavnagar Hospital for further treatment, where during the course of Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined treatment, she succumbed to the injuries. Pursuant thereto, an FIR came to be registered vide C.R. No.106 of 1996 at Vallabhipur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and on completion of the same, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned trial Court being Criminal Case No.284 of 1996. The learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the present applicant-accused for the aforesaid offences and passed judgment and order of conviction on 26.11.2002.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned JMFC, Vallabhipur, the accused preferred an appeal before the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, vide Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2002. The said appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court was confirmed on 30.07.2005. Against the said order, the present revision application has Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined been preferred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. After hearing the rival submissions of both the parties and perusing the record and proceedings, it is required to be noted that the scope of revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is very limited. The revisional powers are restricted to calling for and examining the record of any lower Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, propriety, or regularity of any proceedings or order made in the case. The object of this provision is to correct a patent defect or jurisdictional error or perversity which has crept in the proceedings.
7. However, the High Court, in revision, exercises supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature. It does not re-appreciate the evidence as a second appellate Court for the purpose of determining whether the concurrent findings of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge were correct. In this regard, it is appropriate Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 452, wherein it is observed as under:
"5. Having examined the impugned Judgement of the High Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction, In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned Judgement of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by re-appreciating the oral evidence. The High Court also committed further error in not examining several items of evidence relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction of the respondent. In this view of the matter the impugned Judgement of the High Court is wholly unsustainable in law and we, accordingly set aside the same. The conviction and sentence of the respondent as passed by the Magistrate and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal is confirmed. This appeal is allowed. Bail bonds furnished stand cancelled. The respondent must surrender to serve the sentence."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204, has observed as under:
"10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined at by two courts after detalled appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short "CrPC") vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such Inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings."
9. In light of the aforesaid proposition of law, the factual situation of the present applicant is required to be examined. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that on the date of the accident, the present applicant was driving the ST bus and the said bus dashed with the motor- Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined cycle which was being driven by the complainant.
10. Further, in the Trial Court, the prosecution examined witness Dinesh Jaisurbhai at Exh. 6, PW-1, who happened to be the conductor of the said ST bus. As per his deposition, he stated that the bus was being driven by Ashokbhai Kantilal and at the time of the incident, one scooter came from the Vallabhipur side and the persons on the scooter were talking with a tempo driver while driving. Subsequently, they lost balance of the scooter and there was a lady and one child also on the scooter. As the rider lost control of the scooter, it dashed with the bus and the incident took place. So far as other witnesses are concerned, the complainant - Batukbhai Vashrambhai has been examined at Exh. 8, Vipulbhai Vashrambhai at Exh. 3, Parshotambhai Nanubhai at Exh. 12, Jivanbhai at Exh. 13 and another witness Ghelabhai Mohanbhai at Exh. 29. All these witnesses are eye-witnesses. The medical witnesses, namely, Dr. Rameshbhai Ramjibhai at Exh. 15, Dr. Hasmukhlal Kantilal Parekh at Exh. 17, and Dr. Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined Jitendrabhai at Exh. 23, have also been examined. The post-mortem report has been produced at Exh. 19, whereas the medical certificates have been produced at Exhs. 16 and
24. The Investigating Officer has been examined at Exh. 33.
11. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence produced, came to the conclusion that the present applicant, who was driving the ST bus at the time of the accident, had not taken due care. The same was established from the evidence of the witnesses, which showed that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Except for the deposition of the conductor, the other witnesses have specifically stated that there was rash and negligent driving by the driver of the ST bus. Considering the fact that one lady succumbed to injuries and two persons sustained fractures, the learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
12. The said judgment of conviction was assailed by Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined preferring an appeal. In the appeal also, the learned Sessions Court, after considering, appreciating and re- appreciating the evidence, recorded the findings that no illegality had been committed by the Court below while recording the conviction, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
13. As regards the only legal defence taken, namely, that the conviction is barred under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that no sanction has been recorded or obtained by the Investigating Officer, it is noted that this plea has been raised for the first time before this Court. Further, looking to Section 197(1), it applies only if the acts complained of are connected with the discharge of official duty and notice is required to be attached to the office. In the present case, it appears from the record that the present appellant-original accused was driving his ST bus in a rash and negligent manner, and because of that, the incident took place. Hence, Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure not come into play. Hence, considering this, I do Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts below.
14. So far as the other arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant are concerned, it is submitted that considering the fact that the incident took place way back in 2006 and at that time, the age of the present applicant was 36 years and at present he is more than 60 years old, it is submitted that the sentence may be modified to that extent.
15. Considering the aforesaid, so far as conviction of applicant is concerned, the same is required to be confirmed. However, the sentence is required to be modified. Considering the age of the present applicant, the sentence under Section 279 of the IPC is modified and reduced to three months, under Section 338 of the IPC the sentence is also reduced to three months and so far as Section 304-A of the IPC is concerned, the sentence is reduced to three months. The rest of the sentences are to be maintained. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined sentence undergone by the present applicant shall be given a set-off under the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
16 Accordingly, the sentence is modified to the aforesaid extent only. Considering the same, the present revision application is hereby rejected. The bail bond furnished by the present applicant-accused stands cancelled and the present applicant-accused shall surrender before the concerned Court to serve the sentence within 4 weeks from the date of passing of this order. Rule is discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) Hitesh Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:52:33 IST 2025