Patel Kantilal Dharmshibhai vs State Of Gujarat

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J

[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 order of conviction and sentence dated 10.01.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surendranagar in Criminal Case No.1447 of 2002, whereby the learned trial Court has been pleased to hold the applicant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "IPC" for short) read with Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and sentenced to undergo simple 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 one month for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment of one month for the offence under Section 135 of the G.P. Act. The said order was assailed by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2008, wherein, vide judgment dated 08.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, the appeal came to be partly allowed and applicant - accused was acquitted for the offence under Section 135 of the GP Act whereas conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 and 325 of the IPC was confirmed. Hence, the present Revision Application is filed by the applicant-accused.

[2.0] Heard learned Advocate Mr. Y.J. Patel for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the respondent - State.

[3.0] At the outset, the applicant - accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC and there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The applicant has committed the offence for the first time and hence, the learned Advocate for the applicant has prayed to extend the benefit of probation to the applicants. This Court vide order dated 18.03.2026, has called for report of Probation Officer, Surendranagar in compliance of which the Chief Probation Officer, Surendranagar, 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, 24 years have passed since the date of the incident and during this period the applicant did not indulge in any further crime and report of Probation Officer also suggest good conduct of the applicant.

[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-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 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/- each, with one surety of like amount for a period of one (1) year.

[6.0] 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.

[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.