[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Patel Devrajbhai @ Batukbhai Kurjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/376/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 376 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
PATEL DEVRAJBHAI @ BATUKBHAI KURJIBHAI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 09/04/2026
JUDGMENT
[1.0] By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read
with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants -
accused have prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 15.07.2015 passed by the
learned 9th (Adhoc) Additional Sessions Judge, at Veraval in Criminal
Appeal No.8/2012 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge
overturned the acquittal of the present applicant recorded by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maliyahatina in Criminal Case
No.96/1997 and convicted the present applicants for the offence
under Section 325 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "IPC" for short) and
sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/376/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
rigorous imprisonment of one month. Hence, the present Revision
Application is filed by the applicants-accused against his conviction
and sentence.
[2.0] Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the applicants
and learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak for the respondent - State.
[3.0] At the outset, the applicants - accused are convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 325 read with Section 114 of the
IPC. The applicant has committed the offence for the first time and
hence, the learned Advocate for the applicants has prayed to extend
the benefit of probation to the applicants. This Court vide order dated
09.03.2026, has called for report of Probation Officer, Gir Somnath in
compliance of which the Chief Probation Officer, Gir Somnath has
submitted the report, which is taken on record. As per the said report
the conduct of present applicants is good and Probation Officer has
also recommended to extend the benefit of probation to the
applicant. Furthermore, 28 years have passed since the date of the
incident and during this period the applicants did not indulge in any
further crime and report of Probation Officer also suggest good
conduct of the applicants.
[4.0] Now, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code
is discretionary and it is required to be used only in exceptional cases
where glaring defect in the procedure and manifest error of law or
there has been miscarriage of justice. Here no any such error is
pointed out or no perversity is found from the reasons assigned by the
learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge has not
committed any error in coming to the conclusion. Even in revisional
jurisdiction the Court has to be more careful in re-appreciating the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/376/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
fact or evidence as revisional jurisdiction itself does not provide re-
appreciation of evidence and considering the limited jurisdiction the
Court cannot act as Appellate Court. Hence, no case is made out for
interference with the impugned findings in light of scope of the scope
of revision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs.
Ramesh Chander, reported in 2012 (9) SCC 460.
[4.1] However, one of the prime consideration under the penology is
reformative approach. The Court has to also consider the possibility of
rehabilitation and reformation of offender and therefore, the
discretion given to the Court while awarding the sentence under
Section 360(1)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to consider
the provision of Probation of Offenders Act. Considering the aforesaid
fact, in order to permit rehabilitation of offender, without finding
their communal conscience and to secure the societal interest and
justice, Court should prefer the reformative approach instead of
inflicting higher or harsher punishment.
[5.0] In view of above, the applicants - accused are directed to be
released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, upon execution of probation bond in sum
of Rs.20,000/- each, with one surety of like amount for a period of one
(1) year.
[6.0] It is hereby further directed that the applicants - accused shall
receive the sentence as and when called upon till the said period and
the applicants shall maintain peace during above mentioned period of
one (1) year.
[6.1] The above mentioned bond under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act be submitted before the learned trial Court within 15
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/376/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
days of passing of this judgment.
[7.0] Accordingly, present revision application is disposed of. Record
and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court
forthwith. Rule accordingly.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
