Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai Babubhai Sodha Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 2023
Bench: J. C. Doshi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/99/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 99 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
PRAVINBHAI BABUBHAI SODHA PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS RIYA PATEL for MR TEJAS M BAROT(2964) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 29/09/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present Criminal Revision Application u/s 397 r/w section
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 is filed challenging
judgment of conviction and punishment dated 11.1.2011 passed
by the learned JMFC, Umreth in Criminal Case No.623 of 2000,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/99/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023
undefined
whereby the present petitioner after being convicted for offences
u/s 324 of the IPC is ordered to undergo RI for six months and
to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, further SI for 30 days.
2. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the aforesaid
order before the learned 2nd (Ad hoc) Additional Sessions Judge,
Anand by filing Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2011, who vide
judgment and order dated 23.1.2013, confirmed the order
passed by the learned JMFC, Umreth.
3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Riya Patel for learned advocate
Mr. Tejas Barot for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Hardik
Soni for the respondent State.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Riya Patel did not press to alter the
judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the
petitioner. However, relying upon the judgment of Jagatpal
Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1999 SCC
Online SC 355, she seeks extension of benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958.
5. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni would
submit that the Court if thought it fit to extend the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, may pass necessary orders for
paying the amount of cost.
6. In background of above submissions, if we notice the facts
of the case, it indicates that on 18.5.2000 at 9:00 p.m. when the
complainant was at his home in his Varanda and that at that
time, present petitioner Pravinbhai Babubhai Sodha Parmar and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/99/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023
undefined
another accused Vinubhai came and started speaking filthy
language, therefore, complainant requested not to use abusive
language. On hearing this, the accused got enraged and
intended to give knife blow to the complainant, but his hand was
caught by the complainant. Yet the edge of the knife touched
the right hand of the complainant and as such, he received
injury. Some more incident of beating the witnesses taken place.
7. The aforesaid incident was reported to Umreth Police
Station and it came to be registered as FIR for the offences
punishable u/s 323, 324, 504 and 114 of the IPC. On
completion of usual investigation, the petitioner/accused was
sent for trial. The learned trial Court recorded evidence of the
prosecution witnesses after the petitioner/accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. Further statement of the
petitioner/accused was recorded, whereby the
petitioner/accused has denied his involvement in the offence.
The learned JMFC, after hearing both the parties, convicted the
petitioner/accused for the offence u/s 324 of the IPC and passed
sentence as stated herein above. That has been unsuccessfully
challenged before the learned Sessions Court by filing Criminal
Appeal No.10 of 2011, who vide judgment and order dated
23.1.2013, confirmed the order passed by the learned JMFC,
Umreth.
8. On request of the petitioner/accused, report from the
Probation Officer is called. Pursuant to order dated 18.8.2023,
the Probation Officer, Anand has filed report. This report is
taken on record. On perusal, it appears that the Probation
Officer has given positive report stating that benefit of Probation
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/99/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023
undefined
of Offenders Act, 1958 may be given to the petitioner, more
particularly, in view of the fact that he is aging 58 years and he
has remorse for the act he has done. It is further stated in the
report that no subsequent incident took place, whereby the
petitioner/accused is said to have been involved in the offence.
9. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned
JMFC, it appears that at the time of passing the impugned order,
the petitioner/accused has sought for the benefit of Probation
and at that time, learned APP has submitted no objection for
grant of benefit of Probation to the petitioner/accused. Yet,
learned JMFC overlooked the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 being a mandatory in nature and became
zealous to pass punishment upon the petitioner/accused, which
is some unusual order, more particularly, considering the
aspect that the petitioner/accused has been convicted for offence
punishable u/s 324 of the IPC for trivial injury on hand. The
maximum punishment under this section is three years. In fact,
it was a fit case to grant the benefit of probation to the
petitioner/accused u/s 4 & 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 r/w section 360 & 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1978.
10. Both the courts below have seriously erred in reading the
provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as well as
sections 360 & 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978.
The Court was required to give reason for not extending the
benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Such reasons
are lacking, The learned trial Court observed that at the time of
incident, the petitioner is holding weapon like knife and that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/99/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023
undefined
aspect has weighed the learned trial Court not to extend the
benefit of probation to the petitioner/accused. I am not satisfied
with such reason. In fact, such is not a reason for not extending
the benefit of probation.
11. Be that as it may, since the Probation Officer, Anand filed
positive report, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
petitioner/accused is required to be given benefit of probation
under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In Jagatpal Singh
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has extended benefit of
probation in favour of the accused for the offence punishable u/s
323 r/w section 452 of the IPC. At this juncture, learned APP
Mr. Soni would submit that the petitioner/accused requires to
be saddled with amount of cost u/s 5 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958. For such statement, learned advocate Ms.
Riya Patel would submit to pass necessary order considering the
fact that the petitioner/accused is poor and is coming from lower
strata of the society.
12. For the foregoing reasons, I pass following order:-
ORDER
1. The conviction and punishment dated
11.1.2011 passed by the learned JMFC, Umreth in
Criminal Case No.623 of 2000 and confirmed by the
learned Sessions Court, Anand in Criminal Appeal
No.10 of 2011 is hereby confirmed.
2. Instead of directing the petitioner/accused to
undergo imprisonment, the benefit of probation to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/99/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2023
undefined
petitioner/accused u/s 4 & 5 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 r/w sections 360 & 361 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978, is granted to the
petitioner/accused.
3. Instead of sending the petitioner/accused for
undergoing the sentence, the petitioner/accused is
ordered to execute personal bond of Rs.5000/- before
the learned JMFC, Umreth and surety of like amount
for keeping good behaviour and peace for a period of six
months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
4. The petitioner/accused shall pay cost of
Rs.2500/- to the DLSA, Anand before executing the
personal bond and surety as ordered earlier.
5. At the end of time period of six months, if the
petitioner/accused is found with good behaviour and is
keeping peace in the society, the substantive sentence
shall become inoperative.
13. With these observations and directions, present Criminal
Revision Application stands disposed of.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
