The court affirmed that revisional jurisdiction is limited and not for reappreciating evidence, but emphasized a reformative approach in sentencing, granting probation to first-time offenders with good conduct despite maintaining the conviction.

JUDGMENT

1) 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 27.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morbi, in Criminal Case No.1806 of 2010, whereby, the learned trial Court has been pleased to hold the applicant no.1 – accused no.1 guilty for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Gujarat Prevention of Gambling Act (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “the Act” for short) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also directed to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for five days. Further the applicants – accused nos.1 to 6 held guilty guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month and also directed to pay fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for five days. The said order was assailed by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2014, wherein, vide order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi, the appeal came to be dismissed and the order of conviction has been confirmed. Hence, the present Revision Application is filed by the applicants - accused.

2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Y. J. Patel, for the applicants and learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval for the respondent – State.

3) At the outset, the applicants – accused are convicted for the offences punishable under the Gambling Act and there is concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The applicants have committed the first offence and there are not having any past antecedents. During the pendency of the appeal the accused no.2 was expired and the appeal was abated against him. Hence, the learned Advocate for the applicants has also prayed to extend the benefit of probation to the applicant nos.1, 3 to 6. Therefore, this Court vide order dated 20.04.2026, has called for report of Probation Officer, Morbi, in compliance of which the Probation Officer, Morbi, has submitted the report dated 27.04.2026 qua applicant no.1, thereafter, submitted another report qua accused nos.3 to 6, which are taken on record. As per the said reports the conduct of present applicants are good and Probation Officer has also recommended to extend the benefit of probation to the applicants. Furthermore, 16 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) 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 evidence and considering the limited jur