[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Mansurali Shivaram Artist vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/123/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 123 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MANSURALI SHIVARAM ARTIST
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PATHIK M ACHARYA(3520) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 21/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present revision application under Sections 397
read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
applicant, who is complainant, has prayed for quashing and
setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.06.2018 passed
by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.12,
Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.1200440/2009, wherein the
accused - respondents herein have been acquitted for the offence
under Sections 406, 452, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC as well as
the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Appeal No.405/2018
confirming the order of learned trial Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the original
complainant and the father of respondent No.2 herein, and
respondent No.3 is the wife of respondent No.2. The applicant is
87 years old and 85% physically disabled, and resides with his
third wife, Zaheraben, at the address given in the cause title. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/123/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
case of the applicant is that he is the owner of House
Nos.1525/10 and 1525/11 situated at Ghantiwala Mohalla,
Nava Vas, Raikhad, which originally stood in the name of his
mother. Property bearing No.1525/11 was in the name of the
applicant's mother, and after her demise, the applicant became
the sole and exclusive owner of the said premises. The applicant
was born a Hindu but later converted to Islam and follows the
Dawoodi Vohra community. Respondent No.2 was born through
the applicant's first wife. Thereafter, the applicant married one
Fijiben belonging to the Dawoodi Vohra community and went to
reside in a house of that community with the consent of his first
Hindu wife, after obtaining a divorce by mutual agreement. After
the death of his second wife, Fijiben, the applicant married
Zaheraben and is presently residing with her. The applicant
states that he took proper care of his first wife and his mother
during their lifetime and also attended to their medical needs,
and after the demise of his mother, he performed her last rites as
per Hindu rituals. The applicant also fulfilled all his
responsibilities at the time of the marriage of respondent No.2 in
the year 1993, after which respondent No.2 started residing at
Dani Limda, and therefore, none of the children of respondent
No.2 were born in the said property bearing Nos.1525/10 and
1525/11. After the death of his first wife (Hindu wife), the
applicant used to keep the subject property locked and used to
visit it once a week for cleaning and maintenance.
3. Further, on 09.03.2008, when the applicant went to clean
the house, respondent Nos.2 and 3 came together, took the keys
from the applicant, entered the house, and took away all the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/123/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
articles lying therein, including gold and silver ornaments,
documents relating to the house, and a Honda Activa, and also
threatened the applicant with dire consequences. Therefore, the
applicant approached Gaekwad Haveli Police Station to lodge a
complaint against respondent Nos.2 and 3, the original accused;
however, as the police did not register the complaint, the
applicant was constrained to file a complaint before the learned
Magistrate. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate ordered an inquiry
under Section 202 of the CrPC; however, the police submitted a
report stating that no case was made out. The learned
Magistrate was thereafter pleased to issue process and notices to
respondent Nos.2 and 3 to remain present and file their reply.
Subsequently, after considering the evidence of the prosecution
as well as the written arguments, the learned Magistrate framed
charges under Sections 406, 452, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC
against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and, upon conclusion of the
trial, was pleased to acquit the accused--respondent Nos.2 and
3--vide judgment and order dated 30.06.2018.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant - complainant
preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad,
which also came to be dismissed and confirmed the order of
learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the same, present
revision is filed before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant-original complainant has
submitted that the learned Sessions Judge and the learned
Magistrate have failed to properly appreciate the documentary
evidence on record, which clearly establishes that the applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/123/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
is the sole owner of the property bearing Nos.1525/10 and
1525/11, and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no right, title,
or interest therein. It is further submitted that Civil Suit No.2001
of 2008 filed by respondent No.2 for injunction and declaration
came to be dismissed on 29.07.2017, which indicates that the
said proceedings were an attempt to legitimize the alleged
trespass. It is also contended that the Courts below failed to
consider that the applicant has been paying municipal taxes and
that, as per Exhibits 36 and 52, valuable articles, including an
English Racer cycle and important documents, were found
missing from the property. The learned counsel further
submitted that the testimony of the independent witness,
Dalpatbhai Shanabhai, supports the case of the applicant
regarding threats and trespass by respondent No.2, and that the
evidence of the complainant and his wife has not been properly
appreciated. It is thus contended that the offences under
Sections 406 and 452 of the IPC are clearly made out, and
therefore, the Courts below ought to have convicted respondent
Nos.2 and 3. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present revision
application be allowed.
6. Learned APP for the respondent State has submitted that,
this Court may pass appropriate order.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that
The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the matter was
initially referred for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, and thereafter evidence came to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/123/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
recorded. The complaint was filed for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 452, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. In support
of the case, the complainant examined himself at Exhibit 5,
witness Dalpat Shanabhai at Exhibit 14, Johaben Mansuri at
Exhibit 15, and Dalpat Shanabhai Parmar at Exhibit 44, and
also produced documentary evidence on record. Upon
appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the
conclusion that the dispute pertains to immovable property, in
respect of which civil proceedings were pending before the City
Civil Court, wherein an order of status quo was passed. It
further appears that though the complainant alleged execution
of a sale agreement and payment of consideration, no cogent
evidence such as the agreement to sell, sale deed, or proof of
payment of consideration was produced on record. In absence of
any reliable evidence establishing entrustment or
misappropriation, the offence under Section 406 of the IPC was
held not proved.
8. So far as the offence under Section 452 of the IPC is
concerned, the Courts below found that the complainant failed
to establish criminal trespass, particularly in view of the fact
that the property originally stood in the name of the
complainant's mother and the evidence suggested that it was
ancestral in nature. The testimony of key witnesses also did not
support the prosecution case. Further, it emerged from the
record that the complainant had converted his religion and left
the premises, and his first wife was residing in the said property,
which aspect was also the subject matter of Civil Suit No.2001 of
2008, wherein an order to maintain status quo was passed. In
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/123/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
absence of cogent evidence regarding criminal intimidation, the
offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC was also held not
established.
9. In view of the aforesaid, relying upon the judgment of this
Court in Mahasukhrai Kesavrai Joshi v. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 201, the learned trial Court, upon
proper appreciation of evidence, acquitted the accused. The
learned Sessions Judge, after re-appreciating the evidence,
confirmed the said findings by a well-reasoned order,
particularly for the reasons assigned in paragraphs 19 to 22. The
learned advocate for the applicant has failed to demonstrate any
illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the findings
recorded by the Courts below. Therefore, no interference is called
for in the orders passed by the Courts below.
10. 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 as
well as learned Sessions Judge. Learned courts below have
properly assigned reasons and given the finding based on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/123/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
evidence led before him and hence also, no interference at the
hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is
required.
11. 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 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.
12. In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision
application fails and stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any,
granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
Ali
