Gujarat High Court
Manjibhai Khimjibhai Khant (Sarvaiya) vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/467/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 467
of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MANJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI KHANT (SARVAIYA)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) 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 : 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 the report of the Police Inspector, Jetpur Taluka Police
Station, wherein it has been stated that there are no
antecedents against the applicant. It is also stated by Mr.
Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there
are no subsequent offences reported against the applicant. It
is also not in dispute that at present the age of the applicant is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/467/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
75 years.
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
22.4.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Rajkot at Jetpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate
Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2015 whereby the learned
appellate Court was pleased to confirm the order passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jetpur (hereinafter
referred to as 'the trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 1155 of
2006 convicting the present revisionist-applicant under
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for a period of one year
rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of one month
was awarded. However, the learned appellate Court
confirming the conviction has reduced the sentence from one
year to three months and enhance the fine of Rs.1000/- to
Rs.10,000/-
3. At the outset, Mr. Fenil Bathiya, learned advocate for
the applicant states at the bar that without going into the
merits and looking to the age of the present applicant who is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/467/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
75 years old at present and in view of the statement made by
Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that
there is no antecedents against the present applicant, it may
be in the fitness of things to grant benefit of probation to the
applicant. He further submitted that the issues are trivial in
nature and and therefore, benefit of probation under Section
360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be granted to the
applicant.
4. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/467/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of instructions
received that there are no antecedents of the applicant.
5. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/467/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
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.
6. 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 applicant. 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, nature of incident
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/467/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
and the antecedent of applicant, it would be proper to grant
benefit of probation to the present applicant. Therefore,
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 six months. 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.
7. 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
absolute accordingly.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
