Gujarat High Court
Sadhu Kantilal Dhanjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 17 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 206
of 2018
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 207 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SADHU KANTILAL DHANJIBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YASH H JOSHI(6495) 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 : 17/04/2025
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, Lakhtar 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
2. As Criminal Revision Application No. 206 of 2018 and Criminal
Revision Application No. 207 of 2018 arise out of the same First
Information Report and the same incident, the same is heard
together by way of common judgment.
3. Pursuant to the First Information Report, two different charge
sheets were filed by the Investigation Officer, which have resulted
into two different Criminal Cases before the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Surendranagar and, therefor for the sake of brevity, the
facts in Criminal Revision Application No. 206 of 2018 are taken on
record.
4. The present revisionist applicant has preferred the revision
application assailing the correctness and validity of the order dated
31.1.2018 passed by the learned 5 th Adhoc Additional District Judge,
Surendranagar in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2011 which, inter alia,
confirmed the order dated passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Surendranagar in Criminal Case No. 7876 of 1996, whereby the
revisionist applicant came to be convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 409, 467, 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 55(a) of the Indian Postal Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
5. It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 1984-85, the
accused was serving as sub post-master at post-office of village
Dhaki, Taluka: Lakhtar, District: Surendranagar. He was performing
the duty of maintaining the pass-books of account holder of fix-
deposit and accordingly maintained the accounts and made credit
and debit notes in relevant register and deposited the money to post-
office. During the period of 7.5.1984 to 16.10.1985, it was alleged
that the present revisionist-applicant collected the amount of fix-
deposit of Rs.20,500/- from the account holders, but not deposited
the said amount to office and misappropriated Rs.20,500/- for his
personal use. It was alleged that he played mischief with the
government documents and raised forged documents to falsify the
documents and thereby committed the offence under Section 409,
467 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 55 of the Indian
Postal Act.
6. Pursuant to the complaint of Sub-divisional Inspector, Postal
Department, offence was registered at Lakhtar Police Station, vide
C.R. No. I-91/85 against the revisionist applicant for the offence
punishable under Section 467 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 55 of the Indian Postal Act for the misappropriation of the
amount to the tune of Rs.20,500/- during the period from 7.5.1984 to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
16.10.1985. Pursuant to the registration of the First Information
Report, charge-sheet came to be file. Pursuant to the filing of the
charge-sheet, Criminal Case No. 7876 of 1996 came to be registered.
However, during the course of trial, supplementary charge-sheet was
filed alleging further misappropriation to the tune of Rs.70,000/-
Therefore, total amount of Rs. 87,500/- was alleged against the
present revisionist applicant for misappropriation towards
government exchequer. Pursuant to the filing of the supplementary
charge-sheet, a second case came to be registered being Criminal
Case No. 7877 of 1996. On completion of both the Criminal Cases,
the present revisionist applicant came to be convicted under Section
409 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 477(A) of
the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for simple imprisonment
for one year as well as convicted under Section 55(a) of the Indian
Post Act and sentenced for simple imprisonment for three months.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order
passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 7876 of 1996
and 7877 of 2016, two appeals were preferred by the present
revisionist applicant being Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2011 and
Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2011. The learned Additional District
Judge, Surendranagar by way of the impugned orders dismissed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
both the Criminal Cases, which has culminated into Criminal
Revision Applications.
8. At the outset, Mr. Yash Joshi, learned advocate for the
applicant states at the bar that instead of arguing the case on merits
and setting aside the orders on merits, and looking to 75 years of age
of the applicant and the physical state of the applicant, it may be in
the fitness of things to grant benefit of probation to the applicant.
9. 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
Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of instructions received
that there are no antecedents of the applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
10. 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 yeas 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
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.
11. 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. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/206/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
breach, he shall appear and shall be required to receive the said
sentence during such period as may be directed by the Court.
12. With the aforesaid directions and providence as above, both
the Criminal Revision Applications succeed and same stand allowed
to the aforementioned extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
