SAMJU RUDA BHIMANIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/384/2015                                  ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
             SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 384 of 2015

==========================================================
                        SAMJU RUDA BHIMANI & ORS.
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS BHAVIKA H KOTECHA(2942) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 07/05/2026

                                   ORDER

1.     It is submitted by learned APP that during the pendency
of   present       application,   accused        no.4-applicant      no.4        has
expired. Therefore, the proceedings qua accused no.4 stands
abated.


2.     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 impugned orders passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class & 8th Additional Senior Civil Court, Junagadh in
Criminal Case NO.740 of 2005 dated 15.4.2008 and learned 3 rd
Additional Sessions Court, Junagadh, in Criminal Appeal No.24
of 2008 dated 13.7.2015.

3.     Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned
APP Ms.Monali Bhatt for the respondent – State.




                                   Page 1 of 4
     R/CR.RA/384/2015                        ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




4.     At the outset, the applicants – accused are convicted for
the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 114 of
IPC and there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below.
The applicants have committed the first offence in the year
2005. At present they are doing work and run their livelihood
with their families. Hence, the learned Advocate for the
applicants has also prayed to extend the benefit of probation
to the applicants. This Court vide order dated 07.04.2026, has
called for report of Probation Officer, Junagadh, in compliance
of which the Chief Probation Officer, Junagadh, has submitted
the report with regard to 4 accused, and for other two accused
report is submitted by Chief Probation Officer, Surat, which are
taken on record. As per the said reports, the conduct of
present applicants is good and Probation Officer has also
recommended to extend the benefit of probation to the
applicants. Furthermore, 20 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.

5.     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 Courts below. Hence,
the learned Courts below have 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



                             Page 2 of 4
     R/CR.RA/384/2015                                   ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




evidence as revisional jurisdiction itself does not provide
reappreciation          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.

6.     However, one of 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.

7.     In view of above, the applicants – 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.

8.     It is hereby further directed that the applicants - accused
shall receive the sentence as and when called upon till the said
period and the applicants shall maintain peace during above
mentioned period of one (1) year. The above mentioned bond


                                     Page 3 of 4
          R/CR.RA/384/2015                                                             ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026




  under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, be
  submitted before the learned trial Court within 15 days of
  passing of this judgment.

  9.         Accordingly, present revision application is disposed of.
  Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned
  Court forthwith.


                                                                                  (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
  R.S. MALEK

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RIYAZMIYA SABIRMIYA MALEK(HC00180), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/05/2026 17:20:54




                                                         Page 4 of 4