Gujarat High Court
Abdulbhai Alias Jamadar Jamalbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 3 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 483
of 2016
==========================================================
ABDULBHAI ALIAS JAMADAR JAMALBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSH N PAREKH(6951) 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 ORDER
1. Present revision application is preferred being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
dated 21.6.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2015
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court') which,
inter alia, confirmed the judgment and order dated
11.9.2015 in Criminal Case No. 168 of 2013 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gariyadhar
(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') convicted the
applicant for the offences punishable under Section 25(1-
b)(a) of the Arms Act and further sentenced of 1 year of
imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- was imposed on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
revisionist-applicant.
2. The brief facts giving rise of filing of the present
revision application is that it is the case of the applicant
that the applicant was working as a Jamadar and farmer
at farm owned by one Shri Ramkubhai Devkubhai. On
30.5.2012, an information was received by Police and,
therefore, they raided the farm of Shri Ramkubhai
Devkubhai along with two panchas. During the time of
raid, present revisionist applicant being the sole accused
was present and he took the police personal to his hut
and handed over a locally made gun to the Officer.
Pursuant to the raid and incident in question, First
Information Report (FIR) came to be registered being II-
C.R. No. 46 of 2012 under Section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms
Act. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
filed before the learned trial Court which culminated into
registration of the criminal case, which came to be
numbered as Criminal Case No. 168/2013.
3. On perusing the material on record and after
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
conclusion of the argument, the learned trial Court vide
its judgment and order dated 11.9.2015, convicted the
applicant for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-
b)(a) of the Arms Act and was pleased to impose sentence
of one year. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the
trial Court, an appeal came to be preferred by the present
applicant before the appellate Court, which came to be
numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2015. By way of
the impugned order dated 21.6.2016, the learned
appellate Court was pleased to confirm the order passed
by the trial Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
order passed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court,
the present revision application is preferred under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
4. Having heard Mr. Harsh Parekh, learned advocate
for the applicant and Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
5. At the outset, it is being contended by Mr. Harsh
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
Parekh, learned advocate for the applicant that instead of
proceeding with the merits of the matter, the benefit of
the probation may be extended to the present applicant
looking to the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure as well as Section 4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958.
6. Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that as per
the report dated 1.4.2025 by the Police Inspector,
Gariyadhar Police Station, there are no antecedents qua
the present revisionist-applicant and if the Court may
deem fit, appropriate orders may be passed granting
benefit of probation to the present revisionist applicant.
7. It is not in dispute that by way of evidence recorded
and the testimony of the Police Officer, the Arm in dispute
is recovered from the present revisionist applicant.
Looking to the orders passed by learned trial Court as
well as learned appellate Court, the revisional jurisdiction
under Section 397 of the Code is a limited jurisdiction
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
exercisable if the courts below has committed a manifest
illegality or the findings are perverse and based on
misreading of evidence resulting into miscarriage of
justice. Keeping in view the parameters of the revisional
jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the order passed by the
Courts below and the concurrent findings arrived at were
proper, they were factual in nature. The factum of
panchas turning hostile and the offence being proved by
the Police officers, cannot be gone into in present
revisionist-applicant. In the alternative, when the learned
advocate for the applicant has submitted to grant benefit
of probation to the present applicant, the same may be
considered. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure deals with releasing an offender on probation
of good conduct and after admonition, the Section says
that when any person not under 21 years of age is
convicted for an offence punishable with fine only or with
imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, the Court
may depending upon his character, antecedents as well
as the circumstances in which the offence is committed,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
finds it expedient that the offender should be released on
probation of good conduct, the Court may so direct
instead of requiring him at once to suffer the punishment.
As per sub-section (4) of Section 360, these powers can
be exercised by the appellate court or by the High Court
while exercising powers of revision.
8. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the arm
in question is recovered at the behest of applicant while
taking the police officer in his hut. There are no
antecedent against the present applicant. The farm on
which the hut was located also belong to Shri Ramkubhai
Devkubhai. However, without going into all these aspects,
the underlying object for releasing the offender on
probation of good conduct after his conviction and deal
with him leniently in respect of the sentence, is in tune
with the reformative theory of punishment. The object is
to provide an opportunity to the offender to reform
himself. The courts have also held that while sentencing a
person, the sentencing court must apply its mind and
application of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
Procedure or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act
should be allowed a fair play and keeping in mind an
opportunity to the offenders to reform himself. In view of
the same, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
benefit of probation needs to be granted to the present
applicant.
9. Therefore, instead of requiring the applicant-
revisionist to undergo sentence of imprisonment at once,
he is directed to be released on probation of good
conduct on execution of bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand Only) for good behaviour for a period of one
years. The applicant shall further furnish surety of
equivalent amount in addition to the personal bond as
above. The applicant shall remain in supervision for good
conduct for the said period of one year and 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/483/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
10. With the aforesaid directions and providence above,
present Criminal Revision Application succeeds and the
same is allowed making Rule absolute accordingly. Office
shall send back the Record and Proceedings to the Court
concerned.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
