Gujarat High Court
Bhupatbhai Khodabhai Vadsur vs The State Of Gujarat on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/230/2006 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 230 of 2006
=========================================
BHUPATBHAI KHODABHAI VADSUR
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed
challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
10.12.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Junagadh in Criminal Case No. 2544/93, whereby the applicant was
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 468, 477,
420, and 511 of the Indian Penal Code andThe applicant was
sentenced to regorious for 3 years and fine of Rs.200/-, i/d S.I. for
15 days each under Sections 466, 468, 477 and 420 IPC, and R.I.
for 1 year and fine of Rs.200/-, i/d S.I. for 15 days under Section
511 IPC.
2. The applicant challenged the aforesaid order before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.7,
Junagadh by filing Criminal Appeal No.48/2003, which came to be
partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 10.03.2006, whereby
the applicant was acquitted for the offences punishable under
Sections 466, 467, and 420 of IPC, while the conviction for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/230/2006 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
offences punishable under Sections 468 and 511 of IPC was
confirmed. The learned appellate Court accordingly sentenced the
applicant to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and fine
of Rs. 750/- for the offence under Section 468 of IPC and Simple
Imprisonment for 6 (six) months and fine of Rs. 250/- for the
offence under Section 511 of IPC.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. M. M. Kadiwala appearing for
learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas for the applicant and learned
APP Mr. Niraj Sharma for the respondent - State.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Kadiwala for the applicant does not
press the present revision application so far as the judgment of
conviction is concerned. However, relying upon the judgment of
Jagatpal Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana, reported in
1999 SCC Online SC 355, he prays for extension of the benefit of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, considering the age of the
applicant, the nature of offence, and the long lapse of time since
the date of the incident.
5. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Sharma has submitted
that if this Court deems it fit to extend the benefit of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958, appropriate orders may be passed for
imposition of reasonable cost under Section 5 of the said Act.
6. Considering the facts of the case, it appears that the incident
in question pertains to the year 1990, wherein the applicant, while
submitting an application for the post of driver in the office of the
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Junagadh, had annexed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/230/2006 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
a forged school leaving certificate. Upon investigation, charge
sheet was filed, and after full trial, the applicant was convicted. The
conviction was partly modified by the appellate Court, confining the
offence to Sections 468 and 511 of IPC. It further appears that
more than three decades have passed since the date of the offence.
The applicant has not been involved in any other criminal activity
thereafter and is presently of advanced age. The record reflects
that the applicant has expressed remorse for his past conduct and
has maintained a law-abiding life ever since.
7. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagatpal
Singh (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the
present applicant is entitled to the benefit of probation under the
provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
8. At this juncture, learned APP Mr. Sharma submitted that
while extending such benefit, the applicant may be directed to pay
costs under Section 5 of the said Act. Learned advocate Mr.
Kadiwala for the applicant, on instructions, submitted that the
applicant is from a humble background but is willing to comply
with such reasonable order of cost as may be deemed fit by the
Court.
ORDER
i The conviction and sentence dated 10.12.2003 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh in Criminal Case
No. 2544/93, as confirmed and partly modified by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.7, Junagadh
in Criminal Appeal No.48/2003 vide judgment and order
dated 10.03.2006, are hereby confirmed.
ii Instead of directing the applicant to undergo the substantive
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/230/2006 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
sentence, the benefit of probation under Sections 4 and 5 of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, read with Sections 360
and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is granted
to the applicant.
iii The applicant shall execute a personal bond of Rs.5,000/- and
a surety of like amount before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Junagadh, undertaking to maintain good
behaviour and peace for a period of six months from the date
of receipt of the writ of this order.
iv The applicant shall also pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Gujarat
State Legal Services Authority before executing the personal
bond and surety as directed above.
v Upon completion of the period of six months, if the applicant
is found to have maintained good behaviour and peace, the
substantive sentence shall stand inoperative.
9. With these observations and directions, present Criminal
Revision Application stands disposed of.
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Kaushal Rathod
