Gujarat High Court
Sonabhai Thavrabhai Dhrangi vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 940
of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SONABHAI THAVRABHAI DHRANGI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. HARDIK SONI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 16/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. At the outset Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State applicant has placed on
record a report of the Police Inspector, Poshina Police Station,
wherein it has been stated that there are no antecedents
against the applicants. It is also stated by Mr. Hardik Soni,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there are no
subsequent offences reported against the applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
2. Present revision application is preferred under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code
assailing the correctness and validity of the order dated
30.7.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Sabarkantha at Idar (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate
Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2016, which inter alia
rejected the appeal preferred by the applicants and
confirmed the judgment and order dated 5.5.2016 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Poshina
(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Criminal Case
No. 243 of 2016 (Old Criminal Case No. 343 of 2008) 1155 of
2006 wherein the present applicants came to be convicted
and sentenced for six months simple imprisonment and fine of
Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 of
the Indian Penal Code. So far as applicant No.2 is concerned,
he was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section
324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentence for simple
imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.500/- The applicants
were acquitted for the offence under Section 504 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
Revision Application is that First Information Report came to
be registered for offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and
114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay
Police Act wherein the present applicants were shown as
accused. Pursuant to the First Information Report,
investigation was conducted and charge-sheet came to be
filed and the case was committed to the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate at Poshina, which came to be numbered as
Criminal Case No. 243 of 2016 (Criminal Case No. 343 of
2008). Charges were framed against the applicants and on
completion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate at
Poshina was pleased to convict the present revisionist-
applicants by judgment and order dated 5.5.2017. Being
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5.5.2017 passed
by the trial Court, the present applicants preferred an appeal
under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before
the learned appellate Court being Criminal Appeal No. 14 of
2016. The learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal
preferred by the applicants and confirmed the order passed by
the learned trial Court which has led to filing of present
revision application.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
4. Heard Mr. Jigar Gadhvi, learned advocate for the
applicants and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
5. At the outset, Mr. Jigar Gadhvi, learned advocate for the
applicants states at the bar that without going into the merits
and in view of the statement made by Mr. Hardik Soni,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that there are no
antecedents against the present applicants, it may be in the
fitness of things to grant benefit of probation to the
applicants. He further submitted that at the time of filing the
present revision application, the age of the applicant No.1 was
63 years and at present, he will be 72 years of age. Moreover,
looking to the nature of injury, the benefit of probation under
Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as
under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, could be
granted to the applicants.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
misreading of evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice.
Therefore, there cannot be any infirmity with the impugned
judgment and order. The revisional jurisdiction under Section
397 of the Code is a limited jurisdiction 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. The principles for exercise of
revisional jurisdiction under Section 397, Cr.P.C. are
enumerated in various judgments and particularly in case of
State of Maharashtra Vs Jag Mohan Sing Kuldip Sing
Anand and others, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659. The High
Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. cannot exercise
powers as a second Appellate Court and while exercising the
revisonal power, cannot undertake in-depth and minute re-
examination of entire evidence and upset findings of the
Appellate court. There are concurrent findings of Trial Court
and Appellate Court. It would be impermissible to taken an in-
depth re-examination of the evidence recorded.
7. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
antecedents, 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.
8. Section Procedure probation 360 deals of the Code
Criminal offender 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 at once to suffer
the punishment. As per sub-section (4) of Section 360, these
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
grant benefit of probation to the applicants. The order passed
by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court are not
required to be interfered with and they are hereby confirmed.
However, looking to the age of applicant No.1, nature of
incident and the antecedent of applicants, it would be proper
to grant benefit of probation to the present 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.10,000/- each 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 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.
10. With the aforesaid directions and providence as above,
the present Criminal Revision Application succeeds and same
is made allowed to the aforementioned extent. Rule is made
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/940/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
absolute accordingly.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
