Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ramtuji Alias Tiniyo Shambhaji Thakor on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/511/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 511 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMTUJI ALIAS TINIYO SHAMBHAJI THAKOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The State has preferred the present Criminal
Revision Application under the provision of Section 397 read
with Section 401 of CrPC (438 and 442 respectively of the
BNSS) against the judgment and order passed below Exh.10
in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2012 dated 16.04.2013, passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, (Principal Court),
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/511/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
Gandhinagar.
2. The facts giving rise to the present revision
application in nutshell are that:-
2.1 That complainant was residing at Sector No.6A,
Plot No.454/2, Gandhinagar. It is the case of the
prosecution that the complainant had purchased one
computer and as there was Diwali vacation, he locked his
house on 25.10.2011 and went to his native place. In the
meantime, his neighbour Jasubhai Prabhubhai called him
on phone on 5.11.2011 and stated the main door of his
house is opened and therefore, the complainant returned at
Gandhinagar and on looking into the house, he found that
lock of the house broke opened, the door was opened, LED
was not found in the house which is valued at Rs.4000/-.
The complaint was given on 17.12.2011, offence was
registered, investigated and charge-sheet came to be filed.
3. The charge was framed and the case was tried by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/511/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
learned Magistrate who at the end of trial, after recording
evidence of prosecution witnesses, has passed the judgment
and order of conviction and sentence. The learned
Magistrate was pleased to convict the present opponent-
accused for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and
480 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 18 months RI with
fine of Rs 1500/- in default to undergo one month SI
respectively for each offence. All the sentences were ordered
to run concurrently.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, the original
accused preferred criminal appeal bearing No.34 of 2012
before the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, which
came to be partly allowed vide judgment and order dated
16.04.2013. Whereby the appellate court quashed and set
aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court
and passed an order of sentence undergone for the offences
punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC and
further imposed fine of Rs.1500/-, each for the aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/511/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
two offences. It is against this appeal which came to be
partly allowed, the State is before this Court by way of
present revision application.
5. Learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat would submit
that the order passed below Exh.10 by the learned Appellate
Court is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary without appreciating
the facts of the case and document evidence on record. That
the Appellate Court has not evaluated the evidence of the
witnesses in its true perspective. That the Appellate Court
has materially erred in merely imposing fine instead of
substantial imprisonment. The learned Appellate Court,
after considering the evidence on record, recorded the
finding that the muddamal was recovered and there is no
reason to disbelieve such panchnama, that the contents of
the panchas are corroborated from the evidence of the
complainant and also gets corroborated from the
panchnama. However, the appellate court has erred in while
passing the impugned judgment. That the Trial Court
recorded no reasons to show leniency in merely imposing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/511/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
penalty and therefore, the order of the learned 1st Appellate
Court is neither just nor proper. That, there are no
discrepancy and omission in the version of the police
witnesses. However, the learned Appellate Judge without
giving any cogent reasons has passed the impugned
judgment without citing any cogent and substantial
reasons. Thus, it is argued to quash and set aside the
judgment and order in Session Case No.33 of 2012 dated
16.04.2013 by learned Session Judge, (Principal court)
Gandhinagar, and has prayed to confirm the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence passed below Exh.26 in
Criminal Case No.898 of 2012 dated 23.07.2012, passed by
learned 7th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gandhinagar.
6. Heard learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat. This Court
has perused the judgment and order of the Trial Court in
Criminal Case No.898 of 2012 and the judgment of the
Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2012 below
Exh.10 whereby the Appellate Court has partly allowed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/511/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
appeal and has held the respondent herein original accused
is guilty of offence punishable under Section 457 and under
Section 380 of IPC and has passed an order of sentence
already undergone and Rs.1500/- fine under Section 457
and Rs.1500 under Section 380 of IPC.
7. At the outset, the principles governing scope of
revisional jurisdiction as held in the case of State of
Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan reported in
(1999) 2 SCC 452 are required to be considered which are
as under:-
"Having examined the impugned judgment 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/511/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
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 reappreciate 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 feature is brought to
the notice of the High Court which would
otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of
justice."
8. Thus, It is well-settled position of law that the
revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 397 of
CrPC) is to be exercised sparingly and only on specific
grounds that when the decision under challenge is grossly
erroneous, there is non-compliance with the provisions of
law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material
evidence is ignored, or jurisdiction is exercised arbitrarily or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/511/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
perversely. Though, these grounds are merely illustrative
and not exhaustive, emphasizing the need for a well-
founded error to justify interference. Thus, the High Court
while exercising revisional jurisdiction is not to re-
appreciate evidence or arrive at a different conclusion even
if a different view is possible. Thus, the legality, propriety or
correctness of an order passed by the Court is the
foundation of exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 of
the CrPC which ultimately requires justice to be done.
9. Considering the judgment passed by the learned
Trial Court in Criminal Case No.265 of 2012 below Exh.47,
more particularly, on Page 16, Para 21, the learned Trial
Court has relied upon the panchnama prepared falling
within scope of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
However, it is required to be noted that the alleged incident
was committed on 25.10.2011, whereas the respondent
herein seems to have been arrested on 17.12.2011 by LCB
Police, Head Constable while on patrolling. However, as per
the complainant, one LED has been alleged of theft from his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/511/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
house. However, it is required to be noted that, the entire
case of theft was reported while on patrolling and during the
confession before the police. Under the circumstances, the
conviction itself creates serious doubt. However, when the
appellate court after using discretionary powers in the
appeal, more particularly, where the original accused had
prayed for conviction for lesser period, the appellate court
has appropriately passed the order of sentence already
undergone and imposing fine of Rs. 1500/-, each under the
provisions of Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC.
10. This Court, after considering the facts of the
present case, is of the opinion that the case at hand is fit for
acquittal. However, in absence of any revision by the
accused this Court is enable to hold, as such. However, the
appellate court cannot be said to have exercised its power in
arbitrary or perverse manner nor there is any material
evidence which is ignored nor there is any non-compliance
with the provisions of law. Thus, it cannot be said that the
decision under challenge is grossly erroneous. Thus, even if
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/511/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
a different view is possible this Court is constraint by the
limited revisional jurisdiction. This Court finds that this is
not fit case to interfere under the provision of Section 438 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
11. Under the circumstances, the present Criminal
Revision Application fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
H.M. PATHAN
