[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Ratilal M Kaneria vs State Of Gujarat (C.B.I.) on 22 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/676/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 676 of 2009
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 624 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
RATILAL M KANERIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT (C.B.I.) & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance in CR.RA No.676/2009:
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HASIT DAVE(1321) 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
Appearance in CR.RA No.676/2009
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SATYAM CHHAYA 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 : 22/04/2026
JUDGMENT
[1.0] By way of present revision applications 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 28.11.2006 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2,
Special CBI Court, Ahmedabad in Special Case No.16/2004 (Old Case
No.1/1993) as well as the judgment and order dated 18.09.2009
passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No.5, Ahmedabad in
Criminal Appeal No.4/2006 .
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/676/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
[2.0] Heard learned Advocate for the applicants, learned APP for the
respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. R.C. Kodekar for
respondent No.2.
[3.0] At the outset, the applicants - accused are convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 467, 468, 471 read
with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and there are
concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The applicants have
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 08.04.2026,
has called for report of Probation Officer, District Ahmedabad in
compliance of which the Chief Probation Officer, Ahmedabad, has
submitted the probation report of the applicants - accused, 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, 25
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
fact or evidence as revisional jurisdiction itself does not provide re-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/676/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
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
days of passing of this judgment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/676/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
[7.0] Accordingly, present revision applications are disposed of.
Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court
forthwith. Rule accordingly.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
