##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 277 of 2019 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

RAMESH GAGU SAAMATBHAI BAKUTRA & ANR.

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

Appearance:

NISARG S SHAH(8886) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MS.KRINA CALLA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No.

1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 31/07/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present Revision Application is filed at the instance of the original accused under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The applicant original accused have challenged the judgment and order dated 28.02.2019, passed by the Court of learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2018, whereby the learned judge has concurred with the judgment and order 09.02.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj, Kutch in Criminal Case No. 1777 of 2015, whereby convicting the present applicants for the offence punishable under Section 419 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and imposing sentence of one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- each. Hence, the present Revision Application assailing the aforesaid orders of conviction.

3. Considering the grounds raised in the Revision memo and submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant, the learned Single Judge of this Court vide oral order dated 19.03.2019, had admitted the Revision Application and by interim relief had suspended the sentence imposed pending the hearing and final disposal of the present application. The learned judge noticing the age of the applicants as well as the fact that no antecedents have been brought on record, considering the sentence of one year, has enlarged the applicants on bail subject to conditions.

4. The matter was notified under special assignment of old targeted cases. With the able assistance of learned advocates appearing on record the matter was heard.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Shah, appearing for the applicants has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and order of conviction by submitting that the essential ingredient of cheating is not satisfied. It was submitted that even if the prosecution case is taken as it is, the offence under Section 419 is not proved as at the most it can be said to be an attempt to commit the alleged offence since it was not successful. It was further submitted that in the facts of the case, the alleged deceit was not made to the supervisor. At the time of exam, it would be the supervisor who will be in control of the process of conducting the examination in the hall. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Nilesh Ramchandra Japthap Vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2024 SCC on line Ker 1627. Inviting my attention to the relevant observations, the learned advocate had pointed out the essential ingredients of the term cheating as defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further pointed out that the Court has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Jas Vs. State of U.P reported in (1970) 2 SCC 740. In the said case, the oath Commissioner was induced to attest the affidavit by wrong identification of affiant by the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upon appreciation of the evidence and in light of the ingredients of the offence alleged arrived at a conclusion that the High Court lost sight of the fact that the persons who were cheated or attempted to be cheated as referred to in the charges framed against the accused were the office bearers of relief and rehabilitation. There was no charge at all rel