[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Devesh Gijubhai Vyas vs State Of Gujarat on 17 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/403/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 403 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEVESH GIJUBHAI VYAS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR GC RAY(721) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR GOVIND V PATEL(1409) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 17/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1) Today, when the matter is called out, learned counsel for the
applicant remained absent. Even on the earlier dates, none had
remained present on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, it clearly
transpires that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the
present matter. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Taj Mohammad Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023, decided on
11.08.2023, this Court has considered the averments made in the
present revision application as well as the material placed on
record and has proceeded to decide the matter in absence of the
applicant based on available material on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/403/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
2) In view of the above facts of the case and at the request of learned
APP, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
3) By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
"CrPC"), the applicant - accused has prayed for quashing and
setting aside of the judgment and order dated 25.05.2010
rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Court No.2,
Ahmedabad Rural in Special Case No.112/2004, whereby, learned
Magistrate has been pleased to hold the applicant guilty for the
offence punishable under Sections 258 read with Section 120B of
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six
months, for the offence punishable under Sections 259, 260 read
with Section 120B of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of six months and for the offence punishable under
Sections 420 read with Section 120B of IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months, which was
confirmed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Ahmedabad, in Criminal
Appeal No.12 of 2010 vide order dated 25.07.2012
4) Perusing the material placed on record and the reasons assigned
by the learned Courts below, it appears that the learned trial Court
after examining 18 prosecution witnesses and considering 24
documentary evidence, rightly come to the conclusion that the
accused were in possession of the counterfeit judicial stamp
papers of Rs.1000/- denomination with the knowledge that they
were counterfeit. Even though the accused were used 7
counterfeit stamps in sale deeds produced vide Exhs:30 and 31 and
prepared forged sale deeds. Further, the accused herein had
received full amount of the said stamp papers from the parties and
therefore, one can say that he has sold said stamp papers to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/403/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
parties knowingly that the same were counterfeit. The findings of
the learned trial Court had also been confirmed by the learned
lower appellate Court, which itself suggests that the learned trial
Court has not committed any error in recording conviction.
5) The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised where there is a
palpable error or non-compliance with the provision of law and
where decision is completely erroneous and where the judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily. Herein, if we examine the
reasons assigned by the learned trial Court, it appears that learned
trial Court has already appreciated the facts and finding of fact not
to be upset unless it is found perverse and finding of fact not to be
substituted keeping in mind the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in
(2012)9 SCC 460 as no perversity is found in the reasons assigned
by the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has properly
assigned reasons and given the finding based on evidence led
before him and hence also, no interference at the hands of this
Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.
6) It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of
Chhatisgarh reported in (2022)8 SCC 204 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that section 397/401 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 of 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/403/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case
to reverse those findings. It is a settled legal proposition that if the
Courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-
appreciation of evidence by the Court does not arise unless it is
found to be totally perverse.
7) In wake of aforesaid conspectus, learned Courts below have not
committed any error in recording conviction of the accused for the
charged levelled against him. Hence, present revision application
fails and stands dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged. Ld. Trial
Court is directed to issue conviction warrant and secure the
presence of the applicant to serve the sentence. The applicant -
accused to forthwith surrender before the learned trial Court to
serve the remaining sentence, if any.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
