KHATRI RASIDABANU ABDULSATARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.RA/730/2018                             JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

       R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER
         PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 730 of 2018


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

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

              Approved for Reporting             Yes           No

============================================
               KHATRI RASIDABANU ABDULSATAR
                               Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
D C BHATT(7618) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR D V KANSARA(7498) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 02/04/2026

                                 JUDGMENT


(1)       By way of present criminal revision application the applicant has

          assailed the judgment and order dated 25.01.2018, in Criminal

          Appeal No.18 of 2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

          Kachchh at Bhuj, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has

          dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order

          dated 27.03.2017, in Criminal Case No.208 of 2006, passed by

          the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj - Kachchh, (who shall



                                   Page 1 of 5
      R/CR.RA/730/2018                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




          hereinafter be referred to as “learned trial Court”), whereby,

          the    learned    trial   Court    has        been   pleased     to   acquit   the

          respondent nos.2 to 6 – original accused, from the charges

          levelled against them. Being aggrieved by the above-mentioned

          orders the applicant – original complainant has filed the present

          revision application against acquittal of the respondent nos.2 to

          6 – original accused.


(2)       Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the

          respondent – State.


(3)       The brief facts of the present case are that the applicant –

          original complainant has filed a complaint being I-C.R.No.303 of

          2005, with Bhuj City Police Station, for the offences punishable

          under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian

          Penal Code against the respondent nos.2 to 6 – original accused.

          After completion of investigation the Investigating Officer has

          filed a charge-sheet against the accused. That the learned

          Magistrate       has   framed     charge        against    the    accused      and

          conducted the trial. After appreciating the evidence produced on

          record the learned trial Court was pleased to acquit all the

          accused from the charges levelled against them. Thereafter, the

          complainant has challenged the said order by filing Criminal

          Appeal which came to be dismissed by upholding the order of

          acquittal.


                                          Page 2 of 5
      R/CR.RA/730/2018                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




(4)       Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties

          and perusing the record and proceedings it appears that the

          learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence led by

          the prosecution. It further appears that the learned trial Court

          has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

          case between Ms. Ibrahim and Ors., Vs. State of Bihar and Anr,

          reported in 2010 CrLJ, 2223, and observed that merely because

          the false facts are stated in the document does not automatically

          become false document as per Section 464 of the Code of

          Criminal Procedure and believed that the case for the charges

          levelled is not proved. The learned trial Court has also discussed

          the evidence of all witnesses and observed regarding admission

          of the complainant that the measurement of the land shown in

          document was 57.67 sq. mtr which is incorrect. The complainant

          has also admitted that the possession receipt at Exhibit 34 was

          issued in the name of the respondents by BHADA and the

          respondents were given 57.63 sq. mtr., and the respondents

          have executed the document of the said measurement. She has

          further admitted that the document at Exhibit 28 was executed

          after examining the documents on 28.04.2005 and therefore

          they are having knowledge about the entry no.212 in the

          revenue record and accordingly there is no dishonesty on the

          part of the respondents which was also agreed by the learned



                                   Page 3 of 5
      R/CR.RA/730/2018                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




          Appellate Court. The learned trial Court has also observed that

          after the earthquake, BHADA has not allotted 16.15 sq. mtrs., of

          land to Vijayaben Rajgor which is also correct. Therefore, it is

          clear that the respondents have sold the land to the complainant

          which was allotted to them by BHADA. The entry no.212 in

          Exhibit 32 was mutated on 24.10.2012 and not before the

          earthquake and thus the respondents have sold the land which

          was shown in the document was allotted by BHADA to the

          respondents. Further, the complainant and her witnesses are

          saying that they have examined all the documents and exhibited

          the same and therefore it cannot be believed that they have not

          seen the government record and the entries in the Government

          record are admitted by them which also suggest that they have

          seen     the   record.   Furthermore,     the     Investigating      Officer

          examined at Exhibit 185 has not recorded the statement of the

          employees of City Survey Officer and BHADA and therefore it

          was not ascertained as to how much exact land was allotted to

          the respondents. In this way the complainant failed to prove that

          the respondents have suppressed the said fact regarding sale of

          16.15 sq. mtr to Vijayaben and taken full consideration for 57.63

          sq. mtr and handed over only 41.48 sq. mtr of land dishonestly.


(5)       In addition the scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and

          power under Section 401 of the Code is discretionary and it is



                                      Page 4 of 5
      R/CR.RA/730/2018                                                            JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




          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 or illegality is found from the reasons

          assigned by both the Courts below, therefore, no case is made

          out to upset the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court

          and Appellate Court. Moreover, the 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 revision laid down by the Hon’ble

          Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, reported in

          2012 (9) SCC 460.



(6)       In view of above, the present Criminal Revision Application

          stands dismissed. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back

          to the concerned Court forthwith.




                                                                          (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/04/2026 16:34:36




                                                      Page 5 of 5