SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Thakore Vishnuji Chhanaji vs The State Of Gujarat on 3 August, 2018

R/CR.RA/788/2006 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 788 of 2006

THAKORE VISHNUJI CHHANAJI
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Appearance:
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP (2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH

Date : 03/08/2018

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakore for the
petitioner and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent –
State. Perused the record.

2. The appellant herein is original accused before the Sessions
Court at Mahesana in Criminal Case No.214 of 2004, wherein he
was convicted for the commission of offence under Section 306 and
498A of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of one year
simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and for non payment of
fine, 15 days simple imprisonment. Though there was separate
similar conviction, under both the above referred sections, since
they are ordered to be run simultaneously, practically the
petitioner has to undergo one year of total imprisonment and
period of custody during trial is to be given as set off. Thereby,
when petitioner has undergone almost 6 months of custody
pending trial, practically now he has to undergo imprisonment of
remaining 6 months only, if at all his revision is dismissed. So far

Page 1 of 3
R/CR.RA/788/2006 ORDER

as penalty is concerned, the petitioner has already deposited the
amount of penalty before filing Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2005
against such judgment and order of conviction dated 07.05.2005. In
such Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2005 also, though appeal of the
mother of the present petitioner has been allowed and her
conviction has been converted into her acquittal, the conviction of
the petitioner has been confirmed.

3. Therefore, petitioner has challenged both such judgments in
this revision.

4. At the time of hearing of such revision petition, learned
advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in addition to
grounds in revision petition to confirm the acquittal of the
petitioner, petitioner seeks relief under the provisions of Probation
of Offenders Act (herein after referred to as “the Act”), if at all the
Court comes to the conclusion that there is ample and sufficient
evidence to confirm the conviction of the petitioner. For the
purpose, by an order dated 29.06.2018, report of Probation Officer
has been called for. Now we are in receipt of such report dated
10.07.2018. The perusal of such report makes it clear that there is
nothing against character and activities of the petitioner and it is
disclosed that he was taking technical education at the time of
incident, but because of such incident, he has to left his studies and
now doing agricultural work and in fact, he has remarried and
having two small kids and their financial condition is normal and he
is staying in joint family and there is no complaint against any of
the family member. It is also stated that he is living peacefully with
his family and having good nature. The Probation Officer has also
verified such details from different local authorities like Langhlaj
Gram Panchayat, Vijaynagar Milk Producers Union, Pandit

Page 2 of 3
R/CR.RA/788/2006 ORDER

Dindayal Upadhyay Consumer Shop as well as few individuals and
all of them have given a positive feedback. It is also confirmed that
petitioner has given an affidavit as per statutory provision that here
is no offence registered against him except this offence and that he
has prayed for releasing him on probation by appropriate order.
The Probation Officer has annexed all relevant documents,
statement and such affidavit with his report suggesting to extend
benefit of Section 4(3) of the Act.

5. I have also perused the impugned judgments. Since
petitioner has prayed for getting benefit under the Act and when
report of Probation Officer is positive, I do not wish to discuss the
factual details and evidence except to record that except
suggestive evidence there is no direct, reliable or cogent evidence
to confirm that petitioner has abated the commission of suicide by
his wife.

6. Therefore, considering the settled principle of law and the
observations made by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of
Sitaram Paswan Anr. vs. State of Bihar reported in (2005)
13 SCC 110. I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of
justice if the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act is
granted to the accused – petitioner and thereby, he be released on
probation subject to his executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- for good
moral conduct. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction as
discussed hereinabove. The accused – petitioner is ordered to be
released on probation subject to his executing personal bond of
Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.

(S.G. SHAH, J)
DRASHTI K. SHUKLA

Page 3 of 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation