[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Bhavanbhai Laxmanbhai Pagi vs State Of Gujarat on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/302/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 302 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
BHAVANBHAI LAXMANBHAI PAGI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
============================================
Appearance:
MR JV JAPEE(358) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/03/2026
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
15.06.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Modasa, in Criminal Case No.891 of 1997, whereby, the trial
Court has been pleased to hold the applicant guilty for the
offences punishable under Sections 354 and 323 of the Indian
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/302/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Penal Code (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "IPC" for
short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year and also directed to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for
four months under Section 354 of the IPC and to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months and also directed to pay
fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo
further simple imprisonment for 30 days under Section 323 of
the IPC. The said order was assailed by way of filing Criminal
Appeal No.14 of 2005, wherein, vide order dated 12.06.2007
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No.7, Sabarkantha at Modasa, 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. J. V. Japee, 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 Sections 354 and 323 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 30 years. At present he is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/302/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
settled with the family and victim was married and thereafter
she was expired. Hence, the learned Advocate for the applicant
has also prayed to extend the benefit of probation to the
applicant. This Court vide order dated 11.03.2026, has called for
report of Probation Officer, Modasa, in compliance of which the
Chief Probation Officer, Modasa, has submitted the report dated
24.03.2026, 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, 29 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/302/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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/302/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
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.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
