Gujarat High Court
Kamuben Jushajee Thakore vs Bapujee Prahladjee Thakore on 17 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED
BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 777 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 544 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd/-
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==================================================
KAMUBEN JUSHAJEE THAKORE & ORS.
Versus
BAPUJEE PRAHLADJEE THAKORE & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DIPAK H SINDHI(5710) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,5
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR. BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 7
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 17/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] Heard Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned advocate appearing for
the applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 777 of 2022
and for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Criminal Revision
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
Application No. 544 of 2022. Mr. Dipak Sindhi, learned advocate
has put in appearance for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in
Criminal Revision Application No. 777 of 2022 and for the
applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 544 of 2022. Mr.
Rituraj Meena, learned advocate has put in appearance for
respondent No.6 in Criminal Revision Application No. 777 of
2022 and for respondent No. 4 in Criminal Revision Application
No. 544 of 2022 and Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
[2] As both the revision applications pertain to a common
order passed by the learned City Civil and Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad and arise from the same set of facts, both the
revision applications are decided by this common order. As
both the revision applications are from common facts, the
parties are addressed as per cause title of Criminal Revision
Application No.777 of 2022.
[3] Criminal Revision Application No.777 of 2022 is filed
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code")
assailing the correctness and validity of order dated 20.05.2022
passed by the learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned appellate court") in
Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2022.
[4] The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision
application are that the revisionists - applicants are the original
applicants who filed an application under Section 13 of the Birth
and Death Registration Act, 1969 before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad (hereinafter
referred to as "the learned trial court") being Criminal Misc.
Application No.3073 of 2020. The said application pertained to
registration of death of Jushajee Malajee Thakore, who,
according to the applicants was the husband of applicant No.1
and father of applicant Nos.2 and 3. The learned Magistrate, by
way of order dated 25.06.2021, directed the Registrar, Birth and
Death Registration, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation,
Ahmedabad to register the date of death of the deceased
Jushajee Malajee Thakore.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
[5] Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2021, the
respondents preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Code
before the learned appellate court. The criminal appeal came to
be numbered as Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2022. The learned
appellate court, by way of impugned order dated 20.05.2022,
allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and quashed
and set aside the order passed by the learned trial court. Being
aggrieved by the order passed by the learned appellate court,
the present revision application is preferred. Further, the
respondents have also preferred another revision application
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code, inter alia,
praying to modify the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 passed
by the learned appellate court. In addition to allowing the
appeal and quashing the order passed by the trial court, it was
further prayed that the learned appellate court may also file
complaint against the revisionists - applicants of Criminal
Revision Application No.777 of 2022. This revision application
preferred by the respondents is numbered as Criminal Revision
Application No. 544 of 2022. Therefore, both the revision
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
applications pertain to the common order by the learned
appellate court.
[6] Heard Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned advocate appearing for
the applicants and Mr. Dipak H. Sindhi, learned advocate
appearing for the respondents and Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.
[7] The only point of consideration raised by Mr. Manish J.
Patel, learned advocate appearing for the applicants is that the
learned appellate court has faltered by allowing the appeal
which was preferred under Section 374 of the Code. The
application preferred by the revisionists - applicants does not
convict any of the respondents, and therefore, the impugned
order was beyond the scope of section itself and was not
maintainable.
[8] Per contra, Mr. Dipak H. Sindhi, learned advocate
appearing for the respondents could not counter this
proposition of law and categorically accepted that an appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
under Section 374 of the Code was not maintainable. However,
Mr. Sindhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondents
tried to justify the order passed by the learned trial court on
merits.
[9] Having gone through the impugned order and after taking
into consideration the arguments canvassed by learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties, the only point of
consideration in the present revision application is whether the
learned appellate court was justified in entertaining an appeal
under Section 374 of the Code which inter alia assailed the
order passed by the learned trial court allowing the application
under Section 13 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969.
For ready reference, Section 13 of the Birth and Death
Registration Act, 1969 and Section 374 of the Code are
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"13. Delayed registration of births and deaths.--(1) Any
birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar
after the expiry of the period specified therefor, but within
thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment
of such late fee as may be prescribed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
(2) Any birth or death of which delayed information is given
to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its
occurrence shall be registered only with the written
permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the
prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made
before a notary public or any other officer authorised in this
behalf by the State Government.
(3) Any birth or death which has not been registered
within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered
only on an order made by a magistrate of the first class
or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the
correctness of the birth or death and on payment of
the prescribed fee.
(4) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice
to any action that may be taken against a person for failure
on his part to register any birth or death within the time
specified therefor and any such birth or death may be
registered during the pendency of any such action."
Section 374 of the Code provides as under:-
"Section 374. Appeals from convictions.--(1) Any person
convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary
original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme
Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge
or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any
other court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
than seven years 2 [has been passed against him or against
any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to
the High Court.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any
person,--
(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan
Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate
of the first class, or of the second class, or
(b) sentenced under section 325, or
(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a
sentence has been passed under section 360 by any
Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session."
[10] After reproducing both provisions, it becomes evident that
the categories prescribed under Section 374 of the Code
pertains to an appeal of a person convicted on a trial held by
Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or
Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or someone
is sentenced under Section 325 or if the order in respect of
sentence passed under section 360 by any Magistrate.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
[11] In the instant case, the learned trial court, i.e., the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court has passed an
order under Section 13 of the Birth and Death Registration Act,
1969. The said order, which is appended at page Nos. 22 to 25
categorically observed that the death of deceased Jushajee
Malajee Thakore, which happens on 23.06.1980 may be
registered. Such order cannot be assailed by preferring an
appeal under Section 374 of the Code, which clearly reveals that
it is against any order of conviction on a trial held by the
Metropolitan Magistrate Court. That being not the case, the
arguments as canvassed by Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned
advocate appearing for the applicants deserves to be accepted.
Even, Mr. Dipak H. Sindhi, learned advocate appearing for the
respondents was not in a position to counter such arguments.
Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 20.05.2022 passed
by the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2022
preferred under Section 374 of the Code is required to be
quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside.
Criminal Revision Application No. 777 of 2022 is allowed. Rule
is made absolute.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/777/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
[12] Pursuant to the quashment of the impugned order dated
20.05.2022 passed by the learned appellate court in Criminal
Appeal No.37 of 2022, the prayers as prayed by the respondents
in Criminal Revision Application No. 544 of 2022 would not
survive. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Application No. 544 of
2022 is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is
discharged.
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
