[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai Savjibhai Seladiya(Patel) vs State Of Gujarat on 28 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/933/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 933
of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DILIPBHAI SAVJIBHAI SELADIYA(PATEL)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
Mr ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 28/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1) 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
13.10.2010 passed by the learned 11th Judicial Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Surat, in Criminal Case No.12044/2009, whereby,
the trial Court has been pleased to acquit the accused from the
offence of Motor Vehicles Act and to hold the applicant guilty for
the offences punishable under Sections 338 of the Indian Penal
Code (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "IPC" for short)
and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
and also directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for
fifteen days. The said order was assailed by way of filing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/933/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
Criminal Appeal No.65/2010, wherein, vide order dated
31.07.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Surat, the appeal came to be dismissed and the order of
conviction has been confirmed and upheld by the concerned
Additional District Judge. Hence, the present Revision Application
is filed by the applicant-accused.
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kunal S. Shah, for the applicant and
learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval for the respondent - State.
3) At the outset, the applicant - accused is convicted for the
offences punishable under Section 338 of the IPC and there is
concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The applicant has
committed the first offence and at the relevant point of time he
was aged below 20 years. At present he started his own
business by obtaining loan by mortgaging his agriculture land.
Hence, the learned Advocate for the applicant has also prayed to
extend the benefit of probation to the applicant. This Court vide
order dated 16.03.2026, has called for report of Probation
Officer, Surat, in compliance of which the Chief Probation
Officer, Surat, has submitted the report dated 01.04.2026,
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, 16 years have passed since the date of
the incident and during these period, the applicant did not
indulge in any further crime and report of Probation Officer also
suggest good conduct of the applicant.
4) 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/933/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
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 reappreciating the fact or evidence as
revisional jurisdiction itself does not provide reappreciation 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.
5) However, one of 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.
6) 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/-, with one surety of like amount for a period
of one (1) year.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/933/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
7) 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.
8) 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.
9) Accordingly, present revision application is disposed of. Record
and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court
forthwith.
10) The applicant accused shall deposit Rs.5,000/- towards
compensation within a week before the learned trial Court and
learned trial Court after due and proper verification, pay it to the
injured complainant.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
