Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ramtuji Alias Tiniyo Shambhaji Thakor on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/510/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 510 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMTUJI ALIAS TINIYO SHAMBHAJI THAKOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The State has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application under the provision of Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC (438 and 442 respectively of the BNSS) against the judgment and order passed below Exh.10 in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2012 dated 16.04.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, (Principal Court), Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/510/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Gandhinagar.
2. The facts giving rise to the present revision application in nutshell are that:-
2.1 That complainant was residing at Sector No.6A, Plot No.410/2, Gandhinagar and on the date of incident, the complainant and his wife had gone to Hiralbhai who was residing nearby and when they returned back at about 10:45 hours in the night, they found that main door of the house was opened without lock and agricultural items were also lying there. On looking into the house, they found that household articles were scattered in the house and laptop of LG Company valued at Rs. 20,000/-, camera of canon company valued 10,000/- and gold chain with pendal valued at Rs 18,000/- were stolen and total Rs 48,000/-
theft was committed. The complaint was given, offence was registered, investigated and charge-sheet came to be filed.
3. The charge was framed and the case was tried by Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/510/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined learned Magistrate who at the end of trial, after recording evidence of prosecution witnesses, has passed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. The learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the present opponents- accused for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 480 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 18 months RI with fine of Rs 1500/- in default to undergo one month SI respectively for each offence. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, the original accused preferred criminal appeal bearing No.33 of 2012 before the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2013. Whereby the appellate court quash and set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and passed an order of sentence undergone for the offences punishable under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC and further imposed fine of Rs.1500/-, each for the aforesaid Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/510/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined two offences. It is against this appeal which came to be partly allowed, the State is before this Court by way of present revision application.
5. Learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat would submit that the order passed below Exh.10 by the learned Appellate Court is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary without appreciating the facts of the case and document evidence on record. That the Appellate Court has not evaluated the evidence of the witnesses in its true perspective. That the Appellate Court has materially erred in merely imposing fine instead of substantial imprisonment. The learned Appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record, recorded the finding that the muddamal was recovered and there is no reason to disbelieve such panchnama, that the contents of the panchas are corroborated from the evidence of the complainant and also gets corroborated from the panchnama. However, the appellate court has erred in while passing the impugned judgment. That the Trial Court recorded no reasons to show leniency in merely imposing Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/510/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined penalty and therefore, the order of the learned 1st Appellate Court is neither just nor proper. That, there are no discrepancy and omission in the version of the police witnesses. However, the learned Appellate Judge without giving any cogent reasons has passed the impugned judgment without citing any cogent and substantial reasons. Thus, it is argued to quash and set aside the judgment and order in Session Case No.33 of 2012 dated 16.04.2013 by learned Session Judge, (Principal court) Gandhinagar, and has prayed to confirm the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed below Exh.47 in Criminal Case No. 265 of 2012 dated 23.07.2012, passed by learned 7th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar.
6. Heard learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat. This Court has perused the judgment and order of the Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 265 of 2012 and the judgment of the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2012 below Exh.10 whereby the Appellate Court has partly allowed the Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/510/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined appeal and has held the respondent herein original accused is guilty of offence punishable under Section 457 and under Section 380 of IPC and has passed an order of sentence already undergone and Rs.1500/- fine under Section 457 and Rs.1500 under Section 380 of IPC.
7. At the outset, the principles governing scope of revisional jurisdiction as held in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan reported in (1999) 2 SCC 452 are required to be considered which are as under:-
"Having examined the impugned judgment 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 Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/510/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined 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 reappreciate 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 which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice."
8. Thus, It is well-settled position of law that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 397 of CrPC) is to be exercised sparingly and only on specific grounds that when the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, there is non-compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored, or jurisdiction is exercised arbitrarily or Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/510/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined perversely. Though, these grounds are merely illustrative and not exhaustive, emphasizing the need for a well- founded error to justify interference. Thus, the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is not to re- appreciate evidence or arrive at a different conclusion even if a different view is possible. Thus, the legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by the Court is the foundation of exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC which ultimately requires justice to be done.
9. Considering the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court in Criminal Case No.265 of 2012 below Exh.47, more particularly, on Page 16, Para 21, the learned Trial Court has relied upon the panchnama prepared falling within scope of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, it is required to be noted that the alleged incident was committed on 18.08.2011, whereas the respondent herein seems to have been arrested on 17.12.2011 by LCB Police, Head Constable while on patrolling. However, as per the complainant, one laptop of LG Company, camera of Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/510/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Canon Company, pendant with chain weighing 1½ tola of gold have been allege of theft from his house. However, it is required to be noted that, the entire case of theft was reported while on patrolling and during the confession before the police. Under the circumstances, the conviction itself creates serious doubt. However, when the appellate court after using discretionary powers in the appeal, more particularly, where the original accused had prayed for conviction for lesser period, the appellate court has appropriately passed the order of sentence already undergone and imposing fine of Rs. 1500/-, each under the provisions of Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC.
10. This Court, after considering the facts of the present case, is of the opinion that the case at hand is fit for acquittal. However, in absence of any revision by the accused this Court is enable to hold, as such. However, the appellate court cannot be said to have exercised its power in arbitrary or perverse manner nor there is any material evidence which is ignored nor there is any non-compliance Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/510/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined with the provisions of law. Thus, it cannot be said that the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous. Thus, even if a different view is possible this Court is constraint by the limited revisional jurisdiction. This Court finds that this is not fit case to interfere under the provision of Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
11. Under the circumstances, the present Criminal Revision Application fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(P. M. RAVAL, J) H.M. PATHAN Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:27 IST 2025