Oral Order

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. By way of the present Criminal Revision Application, the present applicant - original accused has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2 nd Fast Track Court, Nadiad in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2010 dated 10.12.2010 and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehemdabad in Criminal Case No. 133/2003 dated 20.02.2010.

4. It is the case of the applicant that Criminal Case No. 133/2003 came to be tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehemdabad against the accused. By an order dated 20.02.2010, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehemdabad was pleased to convict and sentence the original accused no. 1 - Laxman Somabhai Sodha to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 325 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehemdabad was further pleased to convict the sentence the original accused nos. 2 and 3 to simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Being Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehemdabad, the applicant along with the other co-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 21/2010 before the District and Sessions Court, Nadiad. By order dated 10.12.2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad partly allowed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant -- original accused no. 1 -- Laxman Somabhai Sodha under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while setting aside his conviction and sentence under Sections 325 and 114 thereof. The learned Sessions Judge further acquitted original accused nos. 2 and 3 and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against them.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2010 dated 10.12.2010, the applicant - original accused no. 1 has preferred the present Revision Application.

7. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pawan Barot for the applicant and learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the respondent - State. Perused the documents produced on behalf of the applicant and the report of the Probation Officer, which is taken on record.

8. At the outset, learned advocate for the applicant has fairly submitted that the applicant is aged about 77 years and is present in-person before this Court today. Having regard to the limited nature of the offence, the age of the applicant and the passage of considerable time since the incident, the applicant does not press the Revision Application on merits insofar as the findings of conviction are concerned and restricts the prayer to the grant of benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

9. Learned APP has opposed the present application and submits that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court is just and proper and no interference of this Court is required; however, appropriate order may be passed.

10. Sections 4 and 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 reads as under:

          "Section 4: Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct :- (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

          Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.

          (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.

          (3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.

          (4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.

          (5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned.

          Section 11: Courts competent to make order under the Act, appeal and revision and powers of courts in appeal and revision :-

          (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, an order under this Act, may be made by any court empowered to try and sentence the offender to imprisonment and also by the High Court or any other court when the case comes before it on appeal or in revision.

          (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, where an order under section 3 or section 4 is made by any court trying the offender (other than a High Court), an appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of the former court.

          (3) In any case where any person under twenty-one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence and the court by which he is found guilty declines to deal with him under section 3 or section 4, and passes against him any sentence of imprisonment with or without fine from which no appeal lies or is preferred, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of the former court may, either of its own motion or on an application made to it by the convicted person or the probation officer, call for and examine the record of the case and pass such order thereon as it thinks fit.

          (4) When an order has been made under section 3 or section 4 in respect of an offender, the Appellate Court or the High Court in the exercise of its power of revision may set aside such order and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law:

          Provided that the Appellate Court or the High Court in revision shall not inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the court by which the offender was found guilty."

11. Keeping the above provisions of law in mind, this Court has independently examined the judgments rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehemdabad and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and also the Appellate Court, are based upon appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. No perversity, manifest illegality or jurisdictional error is pointed out warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

It is settled law that the Revisional Court does not function as a second Appellate Court and would not ordinarily re- appreciate evidence unless there is a glaring defect resulting in miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction recorded against the applicant and the conviction deserves to be maintained.

12. During the pendency of the present Revision Application, this Court, by an order dated 02.09.2026, called for a report of the Probation Officer regarding the residence, antecedents, conduct and social background of the applicant. The report prepared by the Probation Officer, Nadiad has been received and is taken on record.

13. A perusal of the report submitted by the Probation Officer, Nadiad reveals that the applicant, aged about 77 years, is a permanent resident of Ajabpura, Taluka Mahemdabad, District Kheda, and is presently not engaged in any occupation on account of his advanced age. The applicant is illiterate and his family consists of his wife, aged about 75 years, who attends to household work, and his sons and daughter, who are engaged in agricultural labour and household work respectively. The report records that the applicant's economic condition is ordinary and his conduct and behaviour have been described as normal and peaceable, and his relations with his family and neighbours are stated to be cordial and the neighbours have furnished a favourable opinion regarding him. It is further recorded that no adverse antecedents have been noticed against the applicant and the applicant is stated to be remorseful for the offence committed and has assured that he shall not indulge in such conduct in future. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, the Probation Officer has recommended that the applicant be extended the benefit under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and be placed under the supervision of the Probation Officer.

14. The offence in question is not of a grave nature or any offence affecting the bodily integrity of any person. The sentence imposed is only of simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. The record does not indicate any previous conviction against the applicant. The object of the Probation of Offenders Act is to reform rather than punish first-time offenders and to prevent his exposure to the deleterious effects of incarceration.

15. Considering the nature of the offence, the sentence imposed, the favourable Probation Officer's Report, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be extended the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the applicant for the offence under the Indian Penal Code, the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court deserves to be substituted by an order of release on probation.

16. In the result, the present Revision Application stands disposed off in the following terms:

          (i) The conviction of the present applicant - original accused namely Sodha Laxman Somabhai recorded and passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Nadiad in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2010 dated 10.12.2010 affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehemdabad in Criminal Case No. 133/2003 dated 20.02.2010 is hereby maintained.

          (ii) The substantive sentence of simple imprisonment imposed upon the applicant is set aside.

          (iii) The applicant is directed to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount before the learned Trial Court for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of two years.

          (iv) During the aforesaid period, the applicant shall appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so by the learned Trial Court and shall keep peace and be of good behaviour.

          (v) In case of breach of any of the conditions of the bond, it shall be open for the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law.

          (vi) Fine, if already paid, shall remain undisturbed.

17. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.