Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ajitbhai Bhulabhai Jadav on 20 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/586/2013 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 586 of 2013
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
AJITBHAI BHULABHAI JADAV & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. NEERAJ SHARMA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 20/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Revision application under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 arises out of judgment and order dated 30.4.2013
by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in
Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2012, whereby the appeal
preferred by the applicant-accused came to be allowed
and in turn judgment and order dated 1.12.2012 below
Exh-67 in Criminal Case No. 22 of 1998 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehmdavad
came to be quashed and set-aside and resultantly the
accused came to be acquitted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/586/2013 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present
application are that the respondent-original accused was
alleged to have committed offence punishable under
Sections 325, 323, 324, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC). Pursuant to the registration of the First
Information Report (FIR), matter came to be investigated
and charge-sheet came to be filed. Pursuant to the filing
of the charge-sheet, the case was charged and tried by
the learned Magistrate, who at the end of trial, after
recording evidence of prosecution witnesses, convicted
the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections
323 read with Section 114 of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo six months simple imprisonment with fine of
Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple
imprisonment. The accused was also convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section
114 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo two years
simple interest with fine of Rs.2000/- in default and to
undergo further three months simple imprisonment. All
the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/586/2013 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
3. Against the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed below Exh-67 in Criminal Case No. 22 of
1998 on 1.12.2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Mehmdavad, the accused preferred appeal
before the learned Sessions Court, Kheda @ Nadiad. The
appeal came to be numbered as Appeal No. 96 of 2012.
The learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda @
Nadiad allowed the appeal after considering the
evidences and by way of judgment and order dated
30.4.2013 passed below Exh-10 in Criminal Appeal No. 96
of 2012, acquitted the accused of all the offences.
4. Being aggrieved by order dated 30.4.2013 passed
below Exh-10 in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2012, the
State has preferred the present revision application.
5. The Court has heard Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the revisionist-applicant.
It has been contended by Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor that the learned appellate
Court has not evaluated the evidence of the witnesses in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/586/2013 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
true and proper perspective and, therefore, the judgment
and order passed by the learned appellate Court needs to
be quashed and set-aside.
6. It was further submitted that the learned appellate
Court ought to have considered the evidence of father of
complainant who has deposed in his testimony about the
occurrence of the incident and has also stated as to how
and in what manner the entire incident took place. The
witness has further deposed in his testimony that the
accused had gone to the complainant and started some
altercation which resulted into causing injuries to him.
Therefore, the evidence of this witness got corroborated
with the contents of the complaint and the learned
appellate Court ought to have considered such evidence.
7. It was further submitted by Mr. Sharma, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor that the appellate Court
ought to have considered the evidence of Doctor who has
deposed in his testimony that injured was brought for
treatment and had given history of beating with Dhariya
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/586/2013 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
and other weapons. It was further submitted by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the learned
appellant judge ought to have considered the contents of
the complaint which got corroborated from the evidence
of the complaint and also should have considered the
medical evidence which got supported from the evidence
of eye-witness.
8. In wake of such submissions, Mr. Neeraj Sharma,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor has sought to submit
that the findings and re-appreciation of evidence
recorded by learned appellate Court is not just and
proper and, therefore, the order passed by the learned
appellate Court is required to be quashed and set-aside
and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Mehmdavad should be confirmed.
9. I have gone through the submissions made by Mr.
Neeraj Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as
well as the material produced on record. The revisional
jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code is a limited
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/586/2013 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
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. It is true in this case
that the appellate Court after re-appreciating the
evidence has over-turned the findings given by the trial
court. However, it would be impermissible to taken an in-
depth re-examination of the evidence recorded by the
appellate Court. The only argument canvassed by Mr.
Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is with
regard to appreciation of the evidence by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/586/2013 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
appellate Court. There is no argument which canvasses if
there was any illegality or any error of law by the learned
appellate Court. Therefore, when the revisional power
under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be
exercised in a routine and casual manner and cannot go
into re-appreciation of evidence, there is nothing on
record which substantiate any manifest illegality in the
order passed by the learned appellate Court. In view of
the same, the present revision application is without any
merits and, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
With the aforesaid observations, the present revision
application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as
to costs.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
