Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chandrasinh Bhavansinh Vihol on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1083/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO.
1083 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd/-
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHANDRASINH BHAVANSINH VIHOL
==================================================
Appearance:
MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KV SHELAT(834) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. SHYAM K SHELAT(6552) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] The present revision application is preferred assailing the
validity of the order rendered below Exhibit '12' in Criminal
Appeal No.48 of 2016 on 21.07.2017 passed by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, whereby the learned
Appellate Court was pleased to confirm the order of conviction
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1083/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
against the respondent passed in Criminal Case No.1245 of 1989
on 12.08.2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420
and 465 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the
IPC"). However, the respondent was granted the benefit under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act"), which is led to filing of the present
revision application.
[2] Heard Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the applicant - State. Learned advocates
Mr. K. V. Shelat and Mr. Shyam K. Shelat appearing for the
respondent are not present. However, as the issue is with regard
to the benefit given to the respondent under the Act, the present
revision application is being decided on the basis of submissions
made by Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
[3] The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision
application is that the original complainant was serving as an
Assistant Manager and the respondent being Junior Clerk make
misappropriation of Item in the form of clothes to the tune of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1083/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
Rs.6820.15/- and mentioned wrong number in the charge-list.
Therefore, a complaint came to be registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 465, 420 and 409 of the IPC. Pursuant
to the lodgement of the First Information Report and filing of the
charge-sheet, charges were framed and the accused, i.e.,
respondent pleaded not guilty to the charges. Upon pleading of
the evidence and hearing of the arguments, the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class by way of order dated 12.08.2016 in
Criminal Case No.1245 of 1989 was pleased to convict the present
respondent for offence punishable under Sections 465, 420 and
409 of the IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a
period of two years along with a fine of Rs.1500.
[3.1] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by order passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.08.2016, the respondent
preferred an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Gandhinagar, which came to be numbered as Criminal Appeal
No.48 of 2016. By way of order dated 12.07.2017, below Exhibit
'12', the learned Appellate Court was pleased to confirm the
conviction and sentence of fine imposed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No.1245 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1083/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
1989. However, the sentence was altered and the respondent was
released on probation of good conduct on execution of bond of
Rs.10,000/- looking to the age of respondent, who was 68 years of
age at the relevant point of time, i.e., on 21.07.2017 as well as
looking to the report of the Probation Officer. It is this relief
granted by the learned Appellate Court which is challenged by the
State Authority by way of preferring the present revision
application.
[4] Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the applicant - State has submitted that the order
passed by the learned Appellate Court is contrary to the facts of
the case, arbitrary, and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set
aside. It was submitted that the learned Appellate Judge ought to
have considered that there was an act of forgery and cheating
committed by the accused respondent and proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Once the misappropriation of Rs.6820.15/- was
proved beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Appellate Court
ought not to have the granted the benefit of provisions of Act to
the respondent. It was further submitted that the prosecution has
led detailed evidence against the respondent with regard to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1083/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
acquisition made against the respondent. There are cogent
evidences against the respondent. Therefore, this was a case
where the conviction ought to have been confirmed and the benefit
of probation ought not to have been given to the respondent.
[5] Having heard Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the applicant - State and having perused
the material on record, it is not in dispute that the Probation
Officer has given its report to the learned Appellate Court,
wherein it was stated that the respondent was of good conduct
and had no prior criminal antecedents. It was further observed
that the respondent was 68 years old in the year 2017 and,
therefore, would be approximately 75 years of age as of 2025.
Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the
release of an offender on probation of good conduct or after
admonition. It provides that when any person not under the age of
21 years is convicted for an offence punishable with fine only or
with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less and when any
person under 21 years of age then the Court may having regard to
the age of the offender, his character and his antecedents be
released on probation of good conduct. Further, sub-section (4) of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1083/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
Section 360 provides that the such powers can be exercised by the
Appellate Court or by the High Court while exercising powers of
revision. Similarly, Section 4 of the Act, thereof provides that the
Court may release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.
Having perused the material on record and the reasons given by
the learned Appellate Court while granting probation to the
respondent, no infirmity can be found in the reasoning adopted by
the learned learned Appellate Court in granting the benefit of
probation to the respondent.
[6] In view of the same, the present revision application,
preferred by the State is meritless and is hereby dismissed with no
order as to costs. Rule is discharged.
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
