RATILAL MAGHABHAI SHRIMALIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.RA/760/2008                              JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO.
                         760 of 2008
                            With
 CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1 of 2026
     In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 760 of 2008

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting              Yes     No
                                                     √
==========================================================
                 RATILAL MAGHABHAI SHRIMALI
                              Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NON BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                           Date : 22/04/2026
                             JUDGMENT

[1.0] By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read with
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant – accused has
prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence dated 30.03.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Palanpur in Criminal Case No.1127/1994, whereby the learned
trial Court has been pleased to hold the applicant guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (which shall
hereinafter be referred to as “IPC” for short) and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year with fine and in default of payment of
fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months as well as
the judgment and order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Palanpur in Criminal Appeal No.9/2007.


                                 Page 1 of 3
   R/CR.RA/760/2008                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026




[2.0] Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the
respondent – State.

[3.0] At the outset, the applicant – accused is convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 409 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 applicant. This Court vide order
dated 08.04.2026, has called for report of Probation Officer, Palanpur in
compliance of which the Chief Probation Officer, Palanpur, has submitted
the probation report of the applicant – accused, 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, 18 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


                                   Page 2 of 3
   R/CR.RA/760/2008                                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026




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/-, 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.
        In view of disposal of revision application, misc. application also
stands disposed of.
                                                                                        Sd/-
                                                                      (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
  Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
  Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/04/2026 14:19:34




                                                   Page 3 of 3