Gujarat High Court
Kanjibhai Kanubhai Bharwad vs State Of Gujarat on 3 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/912/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 912
of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes
No
✔
==================================================
KANJIBHAI KANUBHAI BHARWAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==================================================
Appearance:
D H BHARWAD(7394) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.SUBHASH G BAROT(2619) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 03/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present application is preferred under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the
correctness and validity of the judgment and order dated 15.11.2016
passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Anand
(hereinafter referred to as the "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal
No. 8 of 2016 whereby the appellate court has confirmed the
judgment passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Petlad (hereinafter referred to as the "trial court") in Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/912/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
Case No. 28 of 2014 dated 06.01.2016 convicting the revisionist
applicant under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code read with
Section 177, 184, 134(b), 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However,
the revisionist applicant was acquitted of the offences punishable
under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief fact which has led to filing of the present revision
application is that one Mr. Nitinbhai Kantibhai Panchal had
registered criminal complaint before Petlad Town Police Station
alleging that the present applicant was driving tractor bearing
registration no. GJ-23-B-2461 on 05.10.2013 at around 19:30 hours
and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed with Maruti Van of
the complainant i.e. Mr Umakantbhai Panchal and injured the
complainant as well as his son.
2.1. Upon registration of the First Information Report, investigation
took place and charge sheet came to be filed and subsequent to filing
of the charge sheet, Criminal Case no. 28 of 2014 was registered
before the learned trial court. After recording of evidence and
hearing both the parties, the trial court was pleased to convict the
applicant for the offences punishable under Section 279 of the Indian
Penal Code and further sentence him for a simple imprisonment for
period of six months. The applicant was also convicted for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/912/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
offences punishable under Sections 177, 184, 134(b) and 187 of the
Motor Vehicle Act and was punished for simple imprisonment of
three weeks and fine of Rs.500/-
2.2. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction passed by the trial
court, the revisionist applicant preferred appeal before the appellate
court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which
came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2016. After
hearing both the parties, the appellate court was pleased to confirm
the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court by way of and
order dated 15.11,2016. Being dissatisfied with the impugned orders
passed by the appellate court as well as the trial court, present
applicant is preferred by the revisionist applicant.
3. Heard Mr. Subhash Barot, learned advocate for the applicant
and Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State - respondent.
4. It has been submitted by Mr. Barot, learned advocate for the
revisionist applicant that instead pressing the matter on merits, it
would be in the fitness of things to grant the benefit of probation to
the present applicant on the basis of various decisions of the Hon'ble
Apex Court and more particularly in the case of Jagatpal Singh &
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/912/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
Ors., v. State of Haryana reported in 1999 SCC Online SC 335.
Pursuant to the request made by the learned advocate for the
applicant, Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
has placed on record the report of the concerned Police Inspector,
Petlad Town Police Station, Anand wherein, it has been confirmed
that apart from the present incident in question, there are no other
antecedents qua the revisionist applicant. Therefore, it has been
submitted that if the Court as it deems fit may pass appropriate
orders granting benefit of probation to the revisionist applicant on
the suitable terms and conditions.
5. In this background of the case and on the request made by the
learned advocate for the applicant, it can be observed that the
allegations against the present revisionist - applicant is with regard
to rash driving. Even on perusal of the order passed by the appellate
court as well as the trial court, the factum of injuries is not
substantiated which has resulted into acquittal under Section 337 of
Indian Penal Code. Therefore the facts of the present case can very
well to be said to one which can led to grant of benefit of probation
to the application.
6. It is true that the parameters as envisaged for revisional
jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/912/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
limited and only can be exercised when there is manifest illegality.
Keeping in view it cannot be said that the order passed by the
learned trial court as well as the appellate court is any way
unjustifiable. The learned trial court has categorically acquitted the
present revisionist applicant for the offences under Section 337 of
the Indian Penal Code and has only convicted qua Section 279 of the
Indian Penal Code along with offences under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The injuries to the complainant himself has not been explained or is
of criminal in nature. Therefore, it would be in the fitness of things,
to exercise powers under 360 Code of Criminal Procedure read with
4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is true that the report of the
probation officer is not there in the present case. However, looking
to the nature of the offence and in particular, the report of the
concerned Police Inspector where no antecedents are reported qua
the present applicant, there cannot be any doubt in the mind of the
Court to grant the benefit of probation to the present applicant.
7. The main purpose of granting probation for good conduct is the
fact that instead of requiring the accused to suffer the punishment, it
should be to deal with the accused leniently in tune with reformative
theory of punishment. Looking to the nature of offence in the present
case while confirming the order of conviction granted by the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/912/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
court as well as the appellate court, it would be proper to see to it
that the order of punishment is carried out only for the sake of
deterrence to the applicant.
8. Therefore, instead of requiring the applicant to undergo the
sentence of imprisonment at once, he is directed to be released on
probation of good conduct on execution of bond of Rs.10,000/- for
good behaviour for a period of one year. The applicant shall further
furnish surety of equivalent amount in addition to the personal bond
as above. The applicant shall remain in supervision of good conduct
for the said period and the sentence imposed on him as per the order
impugned shall remain suspended during that period. It is further
directed that in the event of any breach, he shall appear and shall be
required to receive the said sentence during such period as may be
directed by the Court.
9. With the aforesaid directions and providence as above, the
present Criminal Revision Application succeeds and same is made
allowed to the aforementioned extent. Rule is made absolute
accordingly.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni
