[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Rakesh Jayantilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 4 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/883/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER
PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 883 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
RAKESH JAYANTILAL PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MR. BHAVIK A RAMANI(6969) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. DIVYANG A RAMANI(7180) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI H. BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 04/05/2026
JUDGMENT
(1) By way of present revision application under Sections 397 and
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has sought
following relief:-
"(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to Quash and set
aside the order dated 30.09.2016, passed below Exh-161
in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 1999 granting the benefit of
probation to the respondents No.2 to No.5 and confirm the
order passed by the trial Court sentencing the respondent
to one year simple imprisonment pursuant to judgment
and order dated 25.10.1999."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/883/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
(2) Having heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and learned
APP for the respondent - State, perusing the record it appears
that the applicant is the original victim, whereas, the respondent
nos.2 to 5 herein are the original accused. On 24.05.1992,
Jayantibhai Khodabhai Patel i.e. father of the victim - applicant
herein has lodged one FIR being I-C.R.No.174 of 1992,
registered with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the
offences punishable under Section 324, 427 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.
Thereafter, trial was conducted and accused were convicted
under Sections 324 and 114 of the IPC vide judgment dated
25.10.1999 in Criminal Case No.2919 of 1994, passed by the
learned 7th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad.
The said order was assailed by way of filing Criminal Appeal
No.32 of 1999, wherein, vide order dated 30.09.2016 the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special), Mirzapur,
Ahmedabad (Rural), has been pleased to extend the benefit of
probation of good conduct to the accused - respondent nos.3 to
5, whereas, during the pendency of the appeal the accused no.1
- respondent no.2 herein was expired. Being aggrieved by the
said order the applicant - victim has preferred the present
revision application.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/883/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
(3) At the outset, it is worth to mention here that the alleged
incident took place in the year 1994 thereafter, in the year 2016
the learned Session Court has extended the benefit of probation
to the accused for one year. During the aforesaid period of
probation no untoward incident took place or no any condition of
good behaviour, conduct or maintaining peace was breached or
violated by the accused - respondent nos.3 to 5 herein. In view
of the above, as well as considering the long duration no case is
made out to pass any direction to quash and set aside the
aforesaid order extending the benefit of probation as no
perversity is found in the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge in the Appeal. Even the
learned Advocate for the applicant failed to point out any
perversity or illegality in order of extending the benefit of
probation to the accused by the Appellate Court.
(4) In view of the above, present Criminal Revision Application
stands dismissed. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back
to the concerned Court forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
