Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.RA/383/2010 2/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 383 of 2010 ========================================================= POONAMBHAI HARMANBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARDIK A DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1, MR KP RAVAL, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 03/08/2010 ORAL ORDER
for the petitioner stated, at the outset, that if the petitioner be
granted benefit of probation, he would not press this petition
against the conviction recorded by the Courts below.
the above basis, I have heard learned advocates for the parties and
perused the documents on record. The petitioner is original accused.
He was charged for the offence under Sections 323, 332, 426, 504,
506 read with Section 114 of IPC. By judgment dated 28th
August, 2009, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted
the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC alone
and sentenced him to 1 month S.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.200/-.
petitioner challenged the decision of the learned Magistrate before
the Sessions Court. His Appeal No.66 of 2009, however, came to be
dismissed by a judgment dated 15th July, 2010. The
petitioner is, therefore, preferred this revision application
challenging the conviction and sentenced ordered by the Courts
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is aged about
70 years. He has never been involved in any other criminal case
previously. The alleged incident took place way back in the year
1998 thereafter, also there has been no complaint about the behavior
of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner resides with the
family and engaged in agricultural activities. He presently retired
due to old age. Counsel,therefore, submitted that the petitioner be
given benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.
APP for the State also was unable to raise any contentions to oppose
the benefit of probation of the petitioner in case of the present
the above aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner should be given benefit of probation. To come to such a
conclusion, I have taken into consideration following factors:
conviction, petitioner is sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 month.
has already paid up the fine imposed by the Courts below.
was under Section 323 of IPC alone.
alleged incident took place in the year 1998.
petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and since the
occurrence of the alleged incident, his behavior is not pointed out
to be objectionable.
the circumstances, while not disturbing the conviction sentence
recorded by the Courts below, it is directed that the petitioner
shall not serve out the sentence but he before the Court of
Magistrate execute a bond of good behavior for one year. In case of
breach of probation of bond, he shall have to serve out the
sentence. Bond may be executed latest by 31st August,
above, this revision application is disposed of. Direct service.