[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Ramanbhai Nanjibhai Damor vs State Of Gujarat on 22 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/538/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 538 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
RAMANBHAI NANJIBHAI DAMOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 22/04/2026
JUDGMENT
[1.0] By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read
with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant -
accused has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 18.06.2010 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vijaynagar in Criminal Case No.422 of
2008, whereby the learned trial Court has been pleased to hold the
applicant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 471, 420 and
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (which shall hereinafter be
referred to as "IPC" for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years with fine and in default of payment of fine
to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months as well as the
judgment and order dated 08.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, at Himatnagar, Camp at Idar in Criminal Appeal
No.82/2010.
[2.0] Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the
respondent - State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/538/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
[3.0] At the outset, the applicant - accused is convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 323 and allied offence of the IPC and there
are concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The applicant has
committed the offence for the first time and hence, the learned
Advocate for the applicant has prayed to extend the benefit of probation
to the applicant. This Court vide order dated 08.04.2026, has called for
report of Probation Officer, Sabarkantha in compliance of which the
Chief Probation Officer, Sabarkantha, has submitted the probation
report of the applicant - accused, which is taken on record. As per the
said report the conduct of present applicant is good and Probation
Officer has also recommended to extend the benefit of probation to the
applicant. Furthermore, 18 years have passed since the date of the
incident and during this period the applicant did not indulge in any
further crime and report of Probation Officer also suggest good conduct
of the applicant.
[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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/538/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
[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 applicant - accused is 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 applicant - accused shall
receive the sentence as and when called upon till the said period and the
applicant 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 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
