Gujarat High Court
Prashant Shankarlal Oza vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 854
of 2017
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 855 of 2017
==========================================================
PRASHANT SHANKARLAL OZA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK SONI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. As Both the revision applications being Criminal
Revision Application No. 854 of 2017 and Criminal
Revision Application No. 855 of 2017 pertains to one
single offence and common First Information Report
(FIR), both the applications are taken together for
hearing.
2. Heard Mr. Jay Shah, learned advocate for the
applicant and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
3. The present revision applications are preferred
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure being aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 85
of 2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court') dated
28.8.2017, which inter alia confirmed the judgment and
order dated 9.10.2015 passed by the 10th Additional
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehsana in Criminal
Summary Case No. 478 of 2012 and Criminal Summary
Case No. 479 of 2012. As the issue is common in both the
revision applications, the facts of Criminal Revision
Application No. 854 of 2017 are taken on record.
4. The brief facts which has led to the filing of the
revision applications is that it was the case of the
prosecution that on 11.6.2011, the applicants were at a
trauma centre of Mehsana Civil Hospital. The applicants
misbehaved with Doctor Kamlesh of the Civil Hospital and
at the time of scuffle, the applicant was in drunken
condition. Pursuant to the incident, investigation came to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
be initiated and First Information Report and thereafter
Criminal Summary Case No. 478 of 2012 was tried
against the revisionist applicant. The Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, by way of order dated 9.10.2015 was pleased
to convict the applicant under Section 66(1)(b) and
Section 85(1)(3) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and
was pleased to undergo sentence of 30 days and fine of
Rs.500/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure came to be preferred which was
dismissed by way of order dated 5.11.2015, which has
resulted into filing of present revision application.
5. Mr. Jay Shah, learned advocate for the applicant
states at bar that the incident is of the year 2011 and
there are no other antecedents except the fact that for
the same offence, there was another complaint by Doctor,
which inter alia resulted into acquittal granted to the
revision applicant. In view of the same, Mr. Shah, learned
advocate for the applicant shall pass appropriate order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
6. Per contra, Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor states that as per report of Mehsana 'A'
Division Police Station, there are no other antecedent
against the present applicants. Apart from the said
offence, a separate offence was registered for having
altercation with the Doctor and even in that offence, the
applicants have been acquitted. Apart from that, there
are no antecedent against the present revisionist-
applicants.
7. It is true that the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has
limited jurisdiction which can be exercisable if the court
below has committed a manifest illegality or the findings
are perverse and based on misreading of evidence
resulting into miscarriage of justice. Therefore, there
cannot be any infirmity with the impugned judgment and
order. However, Section 360 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure deals with releasing an offender on probation
of good conduct, with regard to his age, character as well
as the incident and antecedents, then the underlying
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
object for releasing the offender after conviction is to be
dealt with leniently in respect of his sentence, is in tune
with the reformative theory of punishment. It is also
stated by learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the
basis of instructions received that there are no
antecedents of the applicants.
8. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals
with releasing an offender on probation of good conduct
or 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 of less or when any person
under 21 years of age or any woman is convicted of an
offence not punishable death or imprisonment for life and
no previous conviction was proved against the offender,
the Court may having regard to the age of the offender,
his character and his antecedents as well as the
circumstances in which the offence is committed, finds it
expedient that the offender should be released on
probation of good conduct, the Court may so direct
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
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. Similarly in Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4 thereof provides that
the Court may release certain offenders on probation of
good conduct. According to Section 4(1), when any
person is found guilty of having committed an offence not
publishable with death or imprisonment of life, the Court
may release him on probation of good conduct. Sub-
section (2) provides that while granting the benefit, the
Court shall take into account Report, if any, of the
Probation Officer concerned in relation to the case. The
underlying object by the provision 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 held that while
sentencing a person, the sentencing court must apply its
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
mind and application of Section 360 of the Code or
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act should be
allowed a fair play. In Savaldas Ghumamal Vs State of
Gujarat being Criminal Appeal No.361 of 1998 decided
on 04.04.2011, this Court granted benefit of probation of
good conduct to the appellant of that case who was
convicted and sentenced for the offence under the
Essential Commodities Act, by taking into consideration
amongst other facts the lapse of 13 years in the
proceedings. The Court observed that in each case the
Court should not be enthusiastic to see that each order of
punishment should be carried out just for the sake of
deterrence and held that the trial court ought to have
given the offender the benefit of probation.
9. In view of the above, looking to the nature of offence
and the duration of offence, it would be in the fitness of
things to grant benefit of probation to the applicants.
Therefore, instead of requiring the applicants to undergo
the sentence of imprisonment at once, he is directed to be
released on probation of good conduct on execution of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
bond of Rs.10,000/- for good behaviour for a period of two
years. The applicants shall further furnish surety of
equivalent amount in addition to the personal bond as
above. The applicants shall remain in supervision of good
conduct for the said period and the sentence imposed on
the applicants as per the order impugned shall remain
suspended during that period. It is further directed that
in the event of any breach, the applicants shall appear
and shall be required to receive the said sentence during
such period as may be directed by the Court.
10. With the aforesaid directions and providence as
above, the present Criminal Revision Applications
succeed and same is made allowed to the aforementioned
extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
