Gujarat High Court
Chaudhary Kanjibhai Becharbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION)
NO. 445 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd/-
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==================================================
CHAUDHARY KANJIBHAI BECHARBHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAVI MANDALIA, ADVOCATE FOR MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] Heard Mr. Ravi Mandalia, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of Mr. Pratik B. Barot, learned advocate for the
revisionists - applicants and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
[2] The present revision application is preferred assailing the
correctness and validity of the judgment and order dated
20.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2015 which inter alia
confirmed the judgment and order dated 16.09.2015 passed by
the learned 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Mehsana in Criminal Case No. 1140 of 2003.
[3] The brief facts giving rise to the present application is that
it is the case of the prosecution that the three revisionists -
applicants were entering the functions and duty of the
complainant being the Deputy Engineer at Gujarat Electricity
Board and who was a public servant. On the date of incident,
when the Deputy Engineer of the Gujarat Electricity Board, i.e.,
the complainant was along with entire staffs and had gone to
disconnect the electricity connections of applicant No.1, then a
great resistance was shown by the revisionists - applicants and
they had harassed complainant and, therefore, obstructed in
discharge of duties of complainant. This led to filing of the First
Information Report. Subsequently, after the filing of the charge-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
sheet and framing of the charge, the learned 3rd Additional
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana in Criminal Case
No.1140 of 2003 held the revisionists - applicants guilty of
offence punishable under Section 186 read with Section 114 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to one month of
imprisonment.
[3.1] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order of convocation and sentence, the revisionists - applicants
preferred a criminal appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.73 of
2015 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana,
which came to be dismissed by way of order dated 20.04.2017.
Being further aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, as well as
learned 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana,
present Revision Application under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred.
[4] Before going into the merits of the matter, Mr. Ravi
Mandalia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Pratik B.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
Barot, learned advocate for the applicants has contended that as
the applicants have been convicted only for a period of one
month and offence is trivial in nature, it may be in the fitness of
things to grant benefit of probation under Section 360 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to the applicants.
[5] Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent - State has submitted that there
was no other antecedents qua the present applicants and in
view of the same, appropriate order may be passed.
[6] 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 antecedents,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
then the underlying 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.
[7] 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 instead of requiring him
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
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.
[8] 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, they are directed to be released on
probation of good conduct on execution of bond of Rs.5,000/-
each for good behaviour for a period of six months. The
applicants shall further furnish surety of equivalent amount in
addition to the personal bond as above. The applicants shall
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/445/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
remain in supervision of good conduct for the said period and
the sentence imposed on them as per the order impugned shall
remain suspended during that period. It is further directed that
in the event of any breach, they 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 to the
aforementioned extent and same is allowed to the
aforementioned extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
