IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 376 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

==========================================================

PATEL DEVRAJBHAI @ BATUKBHAI KURJIBHAI & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 09/04/2026

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 15.07.2015 passed by the learned 9^th (Adhoc) Additional Sessions Judge, at Veraval in Criminal Appeal No.8/2012 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge overturned the acquittal of the present applicant recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maliyahatina in Criminal Case No.96/1997 and convicted the present applicants for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “IPC” for short) and sentenced to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one month. Hence, the present Revision Application is filed by the applicants-accused against his conviction and sentence.

[2.0] Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the applicants and learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak for the respondent – State.

[3.0] At the outset, the applicants – accused are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 325 read with Section 114 of the IPC. The applicant has 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 09.03.2026, has called for report of Probation Officer, Gir Somnath in compliance of which the Chief Probation Officer, Gir Somnath has submitted the report, 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 applicant. Furthermore, 28 years have passed since the date of the incident and during this 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 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)(