[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Maganbhai Ditaji Ninama vs State Of Gujarat on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1140/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO.
1140 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
MAGANBHAI DITAJI NINAMA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DA SANKHESARA(5955) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 30/04/2026
JUDGMENT
[1.0] By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read
with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants -
accused have prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 10.01.2014 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vijaynagar in Criminal Case
No.353 of 1998, whereby the learned trial Court has been pleased to
hold the applicants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections
323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (which shall hereinafter be
referred to as "IPC" for short) and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year for each offence and also directed to pay
fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and in
default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment
for one month. The said order was assailed by way of filing Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1140/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Appeal No.12 of 2014, wherein, vide judgment dated 11.09.2018
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Idar, 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 applicants-accused.
[2.0] Heard learned Advocate Mr. D.A. Sankhesara for the applicants
and learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval for the respondent - State.
[3.0] At the outset, the applicants - accused are convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for each
offence and also directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence
under Section 324 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to
undergo further simple imprisonment for one month 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 09.04.2026,
has called for report of Probation Officer, Junagadh in compliance of
which the Chief Probation Officer, Sabarkantha, has submitted the
report dated 18.04.2026, 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 applicants. Furthermore, 27 years have passed since the date of
the incident and during these 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1140/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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.
[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, maintaining the conviction and sentence, 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1140/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
[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.
[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
