Gujarat High Court
Navnitbhai Kalabhai Makwana vs State Of Gujarat on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/283/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 283 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
NAVNITBHAI KALABHAI MAKWANA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANGAL V GADHAVI(11922) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
NON BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Applicant(s) No. 3
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 29/04/2026
JUDGMENT
At the outset, it is stated that applicant No.3 has expired pending the present application and hence, present application stands disposed of as abated qua applicant No.3 - Kalabhai Nathabhai Makwana and present application is considered for applicant Nos.1 and 2 only.
[1.0] By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants - accused have prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.06.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana in Criminal Case No.4669 of 1999, whereby the learned trial Court has been pleased to hold the applicant No.1 guilty for the offences punishable under Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:10:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/283/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Sections 147, 148, 149 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "IPC" for short) and sentenced applicant No.1 to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days and for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment whereas held the applicant No.2 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced applicant No.2 to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days and for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. The said order was assailed by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2007, wherein, vide judgment dated 26.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Fast Track Judge, Court No.4, Mehsana, the appeal came to be dismissed and the order of conviction has been confirmed and upheld by the concerned Additional District Judge. Hence, the present Revision Application is filed by the applicants-accused.
[2.0] Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned APP for the respondent - State.
[3.0] At the outset, the applicants - accused are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 325 of the IPC and there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:10:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/283/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined applicants have committed the offence for the first time and hence, the learned Advocate for the applicants has prayed to extend the benefit of probation to the applicants. This Court vide order dated 01.04.2026, has called for report of Probation Officer, Mehsana in compliance of which the Chief Probation Officer, Mehsana, has submitted the report dated 28.04.2026, which is taken on record. As per the said report the conduct of present applicants is good and Probation Officer has also recommended to extend the benefit of probation to the applicants. Furthermore, 18 years have passed since the date of the incident and during this period the applicants did not indulge in any further crime and report of Probation Officer also suggest good conduct of the applicants.
[4.0] Now, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code is discretionary and it is required to be used only in exceptional cases where glaring defect in the procedure and manifest error of law or there has been miscarriage of justice. Here no any such error is pointed out or no perversity is found from the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion. Even in revisional jurisdiction the Court has to be more careful in re-appreciating the fact or evidence as revisional jurisdiction itself does not provide re- appreciation of evidence and considering the limited jurisdiction the Court cannot act as Appellate Court. Hence, no case is made out for interference with the impugned findings in light of scope of the scope of revision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, reported in 2012 (9) SCC 460.
[4.1] However, one of the prime consideration under the penology is reformative approach. The Court has to also consider the possibility of Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:10:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/283/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined rehabilitation and reformation of offender and therefore, the discretion given to the Court while awarding the sentence under Section 360(1)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to consider the provision of Probation of Offenders Act. Considering the aforesaid fact, in order to permit rehabilitation of offender, without finding their communal conscience and to secure the societal interest and justice, Court should prefer the reformative approach instead of inflicting higher or harsher punishment.
[5.0] In view of above, maintaining the conviction and sentence, the applicants - accused are directed to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, upon execution of probation bond in sum of Rs.20,000/- each, with one surety of like amount for a period of one (1) year.
[6.0] It is hereby further directed that the applicants - accused shall receive the sentence as and when called upon till the said period and the applicants shall maintain peace during above mentioned period of one (1) year.
[6.1] The above mentioned bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act be submitted before the learned trial Court within 15 days of passing of this judgment.
[7.0] Accordingly, present revision application is disposed of. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. Rule accordingly.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:10:52 IST 2026