Gujarat High Court
Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat vs State Of Gujarat on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 09.07.2025
Pronounced On : 16/10/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 217 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NAGARBHAI MAGANBHAI RAVAT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KH BAXI(150) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 16/10/2025
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Application has been preferred by
the applicant - original accused under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
challenging the judgment and order dated 24.03.2005
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
Appeal No.56 of 2001, whereby the learned Sessions Judge
was pleased to confirm the judgment and order of conviction
dated 01.09.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mehsana in Criminal Case No. 5827 of 1995,
convicting the present applicant under Sections 416 and
419 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentencing the applicant - accused to undergo two years'
simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment
for one month.
2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present
revision application is that an FIR came to be registered at
Mehsana Police Station on 08.02.1995 by one Laxmanbhai
Mohanbhai Panchal for offences punishable under Sections
416 and 419 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code
against accused No.1 - Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat. The
present applicant - accused No.1 along with accused No. 2 -
Jagdishbhai Parmar were named in the said FIR, which was
registered as C.R.No.I-48 of 1995. Thereafter, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
investigation was carried out and after the investigation was
completed, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned
Magistrate, which was numbered as Criminal Case No.5827
of 1995.
3. In the nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that
accused No. 1 - Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat, who was
serving as a Class-IV employee with the Union Postal
Department, had applied for the post of Postman, for which
a competitive examination was held on 10.04.1994 at T.J.
High School, Mehsana City, conducted by the Post and
Telegraph Department. Further, as per the case of the
prosecution, accused No. 1 - Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat
was one of the candidates, who was required to appear in
the said written test for the post of Postman, and his
candidature was duly recognized and confirmed by the
Department. Accordingly, he was allotted Roll No.147 for the
examination and permission to appear in the written test
was granted and a Hall Ticket was issued in his favour by
the Department.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
4. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that though
the written test came to be conducted on 10.04.1994 and
accused No.1 was supposed to appear therein, accused Nos.
1 and 2 - Mr. Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat and Mr.
Jagdishbhai Parmar - entered into a criminal conspiracy
and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, accused No. 1
persuaded accused No. 2 to appear in the written test in his
place, impersonating accused No.1. Accused No.2, in order
to achieve the unlawful object, appeared in the said
examination and wrote the answer-sheets as if they were
written by accused No. 1.
5. As per the case of the prosecution, before the result of
the said examination could be declared, one P.W. 2 -
Jashvantbhai Ratilal Naik - Exh.24 submitted an
application to the Post and Telegraph Department,
disclosing the prosecution version and alleging that accused
No.1 had not appeared in the written test held on
10.04.1994 and that, accused No. 2 had appeared on his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
behalf and succeeded in the said examination.
Subsequently, the Department conducted an inquiry
against accused No.1 and found that there was some
substance in the allegations made in the said application of
Jashvantbhai Ratilal Naik. Thereafter, the FIR came to be
lodged on 08.02.1995 at the instance of P.W.1 -
Laxmanbhai Mohanbhai Panchal - Exh. 12, who was
discharging his duties as Assistant Superintendent of Post
and Telegraph Department of Mehsana Division.
6. Further, the investigation was carried out and the
Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet against both the
accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections
416 and 419 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal
Code. Subsequently, to prove its case, the prosecution has
examined, in all, 12 witnesses and also relied upon various
documentary evidences. After the prosecution closed its
evidence, the statements of both the accused came to be
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
7. Thereafter, upon hearing the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to
convict both the accused persons for the offences
punishable under Sections 416 and 419 read with Section
114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to
undergo two years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs. 500/- each, in default, to undergo further simple
imprisonment for one month, vide judgment dated
01.09.2001.
8. Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the learned trial Court, both the accused
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2001 before the
Sessions Court, Mehsana, which came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 24.03.2005, confirming the conviction and
sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction
recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and
confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present
revision application has been preferred by the original
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
accused No. 1.
9. Heard learned advocate Mr.K.H. Baxi for the applicant
- original accused. Learned advocate Mr.Baxi has already
placed on record the written submissions and has
submitted that the findings recorded by both the Courts
below are perverse and contrary to the settled principles of
law and, therefore, require to be quashed and set aside.
Further, it is submitted that the learned trial Court has not
properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary
evidence produced on record. It is further submitted that
the FIR came to be lodged on 08.02.1995, after a delay of
about seven months, which has not been properly explained
by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the FIR was
lodged at the instance of one Mr.Jashvantbhai Ratilal Naik,
with whom, the applicant had strained relations. It is
further submitted that the examination was conducted on
10.04.1994, but on 09.04.1994, the present applicant -
accused No. 1 had informed the Department that his hall
ticket had been lost and that he was unable to appear in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
examination. The said intimation was communicated by
U.P.C. and the same was produced in his further statement.
It is further submitted that no evidence has been produced
before the Court to establish any connection between the
present applicant and co-accused - Jagdishbhai Parmar and
no nexus has been proved from which, it could be inferred
that there was any meeting of minds between them for the
alleged offence. Therefore, the presumption drawn under
Section 114 of the Evidence Act is unsustainable. The
learned appellate Court, in paragraph No.18 of the
judgment, has recorded the findings based on such
presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which,
according to the learned advocate, is not tenable in law.
Further, it is submitted that the candidate, holding Hall
Ticket No.146 and was examined at Exh. 21, has deposed
that he did not know Jagdishbhai Parmar and also stated
that he did not know, who was sitting near him during the
examination. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned
trial Court on page No.10 is erroneous. It is further
submitted that the original accused No.2 has expired. It also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
submitted that at the time when the FIR came to be lodged,
the age of accused No.1 was about 39-40 years and at
present, he is around 59-60 years old. Considering the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present revision
application deserves to be allowed and the judgment of
conviction is required to be set aside.
10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Ms.Jyoti Bhatt for
the respondent - State has vehemently opposed the present
revision application and submitted that there are
concurrent findings recorded by both the learned Courts
below, after properly appreciating the oral as well as
documentary evidence produced on record. It is further
submitted that no case has been made out by the applicant
to show that any illegality or perversity has been committed
by the Courts below. Hence, no interference is warranted by
this Court and the present revision application is required
to be rejected.
11. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
Perused the impugned judgments passed by the learned
Magistrate Court and the learned Sessions Court.
12. So far as the proceedings under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are
concerned, the Court is vested with the power to call for and
examine the record of any inferior Court for the purpose of
satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of
any finding, sentence, or order recorded as to the regularity
of any proceedings of such Court. The object of this
provision is to correct any patent defect, error of
jurisdiction, or perversity which may have crept into the
proceedings.
13. However, the High Court, while exercising revisional
jurisdiction, acts in a supervisory capacity of a restricted
nature. It cannot reappreciate the evidence as if it were a
second appellate Court for the purpose of determining
whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
correct or not. In this regard, reference may be made to the
case of State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan
Namboodiri, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 452, wherein it is
observed as under:
"5. Having examined the impugned Judgement of
the High Court and bearing in mind the contentions
raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we
have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in
the case in hand, the High Court has exceeded its
revisional jurisdiction, In its revisional jurisdiction,
the High Court can call for and examine the record
of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying
itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of
any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the
jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction
exercised by the High Court for correcting
miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power
cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate
Court nor can it be treated even as a second
Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it
would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-
appreciate the evidence and come to its own
conclusion on the same when the evidence has
already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well
as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
feature is brought to the notice of the High Court
which would otherwise tantamount to gross
miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned
Judgement of the High Court from the aforesaid
standpoint, we have no hesitation to come to the
conclusion that the High Court exceeded its
jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the
respondent by re-appreciating the oral evidence.
The High Court also committed further error in not
examining several items of evidence relied upon by
the Additional Sessions Judge, while confirming the
conviction of the respondent. In this view of the
matter the impugned Judgement of the High Court
is wholly unsustainable in law and we, accordingly
set aside the same. The conviction and sentence of
the respondent as passed by the Magistrate and
affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in
appeal is confirmed. This appeal is allowed. Bail
bonds furnished stand cancelled. The respondent
must surrender to serve the sentence."
14. In the case of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malkeet Singh
Gill Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2022) 8 SCC
204, the Apex Court has observed as under:
"10. Before adverting to the merits of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that
there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived
at by two courts after detalled appreciation of the
material and evidence brought on record. The High
Court in criminal revision against conviction is not
supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the
appellate court and the scope of interference in
revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (in short "CrPC") vests
jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or
himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety
of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or
passed, and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of such Inferior court. The object of the
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error
of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded
error which is to be determined on the merits of
individual case. It is also well settled that while
considering the same, the Revisional Court does
not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of
the case to reverse those findings."
15. In light of the aforesaid proposition of law, the facts
and circumstances of the present case are required to be
examined.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
16. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that the
present applicant, who was serving in the Postal
Department, was to appear in the written test conducted by
the Department for the post of Post-man on 10.04.1994,
which was held at T.J. High School, Mehsana. The present
applicant - accused No. 1 had sought permission from the
Department to appear in the said examination and a hall
ticket was also issued in his favour, bearing Roll No.147.
17. So far as the case of the prosecution is concerned, the
prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses. Complainant
- Laxmanbhai Mohanbhai Panchal, was examined at Exh.12
as P.W. 1. At the relevant time, he was serving as Assistant
Superintendent, Post and Telegraph Department, Mehsana
Division. From his deposition, it emerges that on
10.04.1994, the departmental written test was conducted at
T.J. High School, Mehsana and in that examination,
accused No. 1 was to appear, as the hall ticket was issued
in his name. However, in place of accused No. 1, accused
No. 2 appeared in the examination. Subsequently, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
Department granted permission on the application being
made, which has been produced at Exh.17 and an FIR came
to be lodged against both the accused persons on that
basis. The said witness was cross-examined by the learned
advocate for the applicant, but no material or beneficial
emerged from the said cross-examination.
18. Further, the entire evidence produced before the
learned trial Court has been carefully considered by this
Court, and it emerges from the evidence that accused No. 1
- Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat, who was a candidate to
appear in the examination, scheduled to be held on
10.04.1994, was allotted Roll No. 147. It is also established
from the record that on 10.04.1994, accused No. 1 -
Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat had not appeared in the
written test, and it is an admitted position that in his place,
accused No. 2 appeared in the examination, and the
answer-sheet pertaining to Roll No.147 was written by
accused No. 2.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
19. Further, from the evidence of P.W. 10 - Ishwarbhai
Chaturbhai Patel at Exh. 51 and P.W. 7 - Amthabhai
Motibhai at Exh. 46, it emerges that the candidate bearing
Roll No. 147 had appeared in the examination and written
the answer-sheet. Both these witnesses, P.W. 10 and P.W.
7, were discharging their duties as Supervisors or
Invigilators during the written test. From their deposition,
and from the record relied upon by them, it clearly appears
that one person had appeared and given the written test for
Roll No. 147.
20. Thus, from the overall evidence and even from the
statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, it is prima facie established that the
defence of accused No.1 is that he had not appeared in the
written test on 10.04.1994, as his hall ticket had been lost,
and therefore, he had communicated about the loss of his
hall ticket to the Department by sending a letter through
U.P.C. (Under Postal Certificate). However, it emerges from
the other evidence on record that somebody did appear in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
the examination using Roll No. 147, which was allotted to
accused No. 1.
21. So, considering the evaluation and appreciation of the
evidence of P.W. 3 - Revabhai Shankarbhai at Exh. 25, P.W.
10 - Ishwarbhai Chaturbhai Patel at Exh. 51 and P.W. 7 -
Amthabhai Motibhai at Exh. 46, it is established that
accused No. 1 had not appeared in the examination.
However, in place of accused No. 1, somebody else appeared
and wrote the examination under Roll No. 147. It is also not
in dispute that, as per the hall ticket, Roll No.147 was
allotted to accused No. 1.
22. Further, before the learned trial Court, the prosecution
has produced the answer-sheet which, as per its case, was
written by accused No. 2. For this purpose, the prosecution
examined P.W. 11 - Pratapbhai Ketaniyabhai Vasava at
Exh. 52, who happens to be the handwriting expert and has
sufficient experience in examining questioned documents.
The said witness examined the answer-sheet belonging to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
Roll No.147. Upon scientific examination of the said
questioned document, P.W. 11 - Pratapbhai Ketaniyabhai
Vasava arrived at the conclusion that the answer-sheet
pertaining to Roll No. 147, which was written by accused
No. 2 and also pointed out certain peculiarities and
similarities in the handwriting, which matched with that of
accused No. 2.
23. However, no witness has directly stated that accused
No.2 had actually appeared in the examination under Roll
No.147. Nevertheless, accused No.1 made a confession or
admission before witness Mr.Jashvantbhai Ratilal Naik that
he had managed to get a dummy candidate to appear and
write the examination in his place. This conversation took
place prior to the registration of the FIR.
24. From the evidence, it is also established through the
report of the handwriting expert that the signature of
accused No. 1 - Mr. Ravat, appearing on the examination
form, did not match with the signature obtained when he
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
appeared before the authority. Thus, it is established that
accused No. 1 had not appeared in the examination, and
the handwriting on the answer sheet of Roll No.147
matched with that of accused No. 2. Therefore, it stands
proved that accused No. 2 had appeared in place of accused
No. 1.
25. In this regard, it is required to consider the findings
recorded by both the Courts. From the findings recorded by
both the Courts, the following facts have been established
by the prosecution and duly recorded by both the Courts:
i. That, accused No. 1 had not appeared in
the examination.
ii. That, someone else had appeared and
written the answer-sheets belonging to Roll
No.147, which was allotted to accused No. 1.
iii. That, accused No.2 had written the
answer-sheet pertaining to Roll No.147,
which was allotted to accused No. 1.
26. In this regard, the findings recorded by the learned
Sessions Court show that when the aforesaid facts were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, a
presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act was
rightly drawn that it was accused No.2, who appeared on
behalf of accused No.1 and wrote the answer-sheet
pertaining to Roll No. 147.
27. Considering the above, the findings recorded by both
the Courts below are just and proper. The prosecution has
proved its case against the present applicant beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, I do not find that any illegality
committed by either of the Courts below. The findings
recorded by both the Courts are based on the evidence
produced by the prosecution and no perversity or illegality
is found therein. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts.
Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Application No.
217 of 2005, being devoid of merits, is hereby rejected.
28. The judgment and order dated 01.09.2001 passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana in Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
Case No. 5827 of 1995, convicting the present applicant
under Sections 416 and 419 read with Section 114 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentencing the applicant - accused
to undergo two years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo simple imprisonment for one month and the
judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana
in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2001, dismissing the appeal
and confirming the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mehsana, dated 24.03.2005 are hereby
confirmed.
29. The period of sentence already undergone, if any, shall
be given set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The applicant is granted four weeks' time from
today to surrender before the concerned Court for serving
the sentence.
30. Rule is discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Hitesh
