Gujarat High Court
Shailesh Prabhatbhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 19 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/615/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 615 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SHAILESH PRABHATBHAI DESAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR J M PANCHAL(529) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR K J PANCHAL(2422) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 19/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The Applicant has preferred the present Application under the provisions of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Ld. City Civil and Sessions Court, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 25/2013 confirming the judgment and order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 21, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Case No. 459/2011, whereby, the Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:35:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined Applicant has been convicted for the offence under section 379 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present applicant has approached this Court by way of present Criminal Revision Application.
2. Ld. Advocate Mr. K J Panchal would submit that it was incumbent upon the Ld. Trial Court to consider whether he should proceed under Section 360 of the CRPC to grant probation or not and after applying the mind has to record the reasons as to why he was not inclined to grant probation to the accused. Under such circumstances, he has argued that the present applicant be granted benefit of probation.
3. Per contra, Ld. APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat would submit that the Applicant is facing conviction confirmed by the Ld. Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC, whereby the Applicant was found guilty of committing theft of a vehicle from the premises of the police station and was caught red-handed. Thus, he has argued that the present Application should be rejected.
4. Heard Ld. Advocates for the respective parties. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment of the Ld. Trial Court as well as the Ld. Appellate Court confirming the sentence. This Court has also examined the allegations leveled against the present Applicant. The incident occurred on 20.06.2011. The motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-1-FR-9915 -- a Hero Honda Passion Plus belonging to the present Applicant -- was Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:35:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined detained under the provisions of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act and was impounded at the Ranip Police Station. The Applicant was found unlocking the said vehicle with a duplicate key, and when he was taking away the motorcycle, he was caught red-handed. Pursuant to this, a criminal case was registered, and the Applicant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment as stated hereinabove.
5. Ld. Advocate Mr. K J Panchal has relied upon the judgment in the case of Gopalbhai Parshotamdas Chauhan reported in 1985 GLH 100, more particularly Para 6, wherein it is held that the provisions of Section 248(2) of the Code require that first of all the Magistrate has to apply his mind whether the provisions of Section 360 of the Code are applicable and if not, he has to record reasons why he does not want to do so. Under Section 361 of the Code, if the Magistrate does not proceed under Section 360 or the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, etc., he shall have to record special reasons for not doing so.
6. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the Applicant is a habitual offender, nor is it the case that he has committed theft of a vehicle other than his own vehicle which was detained under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. The prosecution has not been able to bring on record any past antecedents during the pendency of the appeal. Thus, nothing adverse report against the present Applicant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court see no reasons to provide the benefit of provision of Section 360 of the CRPC at this stage. Thus, the ends of justice would meet the accused Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:35:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/615/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined guilty of offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC is not sent to jail but release on probation under the provisions of Section 360 of the CRPC. Thus, while upholding the conviction, this Court directs that instead of sentence the applicant to imprisonment, the applicant be released on probation provided he shall execute a bond for sum of Rs. 5,000/- before the concerned Trial Court and one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with an undertaking to serve the sentence if called upon to do so during the period of six months and in the mean time he shall keep good behavior for the period of six months and shall not commit any offence during the period of probation. If the Applicant fails to comply with the aforesaid period conditions, it will result in revocation of this order and follow the consequences.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant is extended the benefit of probation as stated herein above and the application stands disposed of. Registry shall sent the case record to the concerned Trial Court.
(P. M. RAVAL, J) MMP Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:35:27 IST 2025