Gujarat High Court
Nathabhai Khatrabhai Damor vs State Of Gujarat on 15 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/620/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 620
of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==================================================
NATHABHAI KHATRABHAI DAMOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==================================================
Appearance:
MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) 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 : 15/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. At the outset Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State - respondent has placed on
record the report of the In-charge Police Sub-Inspector, Deetavas
Police Station, Taluka - Kadana, District Mahisagar which inter alia
provides that there are no antecedents qua the present applicant. It
is also stated by Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor on the basis of the jail remarks that the present applicant
has undergone sentence of around one month and 24 days.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/620/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
2. The present revision application is preferred assailing the
correctness and validity of the judgment and order dated 01.05.2018
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahisagar at Lunavada in
Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the
"appellate court") which inter alia confirmed the judgment and order
dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Kadana at Divda Colony, in new Criminal Case No. 32 of 2015
(old criminal case no. 1320 of 2003).
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present application is
that on 14.10.2003, one FIR being C.R. No. I-20 of 2003 came to be
registered with Deetavas Police Station against one Kalubhai
Khatrabhai Damor and present applicant for the offences punishable
under Section 379, 511 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The
allegations made against the accused were to make an attempt to
commit theft of machine for taking water worth Rs.6,000/- as well as
iron shed, rope and motor worth Rs.5,000/-. Pursuant to the
registration of the First Information Report, charge sheet was filed,
which culminated into new Criminal Case No. 32 of 2015. The
charges were framed vide Exhibit-14 and after perusing the
documentary as well as oral evidence and upon hearing the learned
advocates for the respective parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/620/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
First Class, was pleased to convict both the accused for offences
punishable under Section 379, 511 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years along
with fine of Rs.100 and in default to undergo further simple
imprisonment of 15 days.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, the present applicant preferred appeal under Section 374 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2018
before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahisagar at Lunawada. The
learned appellate court by way of judgment and order dated
01.05.2018 was pleased to dismiss the appeal and confirmed the
order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, which
has resulted into filing of the present revision application.
5. Heard Mr. Ms. Alka B. Vaniya, learned advocate for the
applicant and Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State - respondent.
4. At the outset, Ms. Alka Vaniya, learned advocate for the
applicant has stated at the bar that the offence is of trifle nature and
instead of going into the merits of the matter, it would be in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/620/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
fitness of things to grant the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act to the applicant. Further, it was also argued that the
role of the present applicant is quite different from the other accused
i.e. Kalubhai Khatrabhai Damor. In the incident in question, mainly
the involvement of the other accused is there and the name of the
present applicant accused was added only on the basis of the
statement of the co-accused. However, according to Ms. Alka Vaniya,
instead of going into the merits of the matter, since the offence is
trifle in nature, the applicant is not having any antecedents, and
therefore, looking to the age, as well as the role of the applicant,
benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act along with
Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be given to the
applicant.
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and
having perused the material on record, it transpires that there are
are no antecedents against the applicant as well as the role of the
applicant is quite different from the role attributed to the Kalubhai
Khatrabhai Damor. Hence, in this set of circumstance, this Court is
inclined to grant the benefit of probation to the present applicant.
6. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with
releasing an offender on probation of good conduct or after
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/620/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/620/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
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.
7. In view of the above, it would be in the fitness of things to
grant benefit of probation to the applicant. The order of conviction
of learned trial court and learned appellate court are not required to
be interfered with and they are hereby confirmed. However, 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.5,000/- 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/620/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
8. With the aforesaid directions and providence as above, the
present Criminal Revision Application partly succeeds and same is
made allowed to the aforementioned extent. Rule is made absolute
accordingly.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni
