Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Poonambhai vs State on 3 August, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   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

Counsel
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.

On
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/-.

The
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
below.

Learned
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.

Learned
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
accused.

Considering
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:

(A) Upon
conviction, petitioner is sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 month.

(B) He
has already paid up the fine imposed by the Courts below.

(C) Conviction
was under Section 323 of IPC alone.

(D) The
alleged incident took place in the year 1998.

(E) The
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.

Under
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,
2010.

With
above, this revision application is disposed of. Direct service.

(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)

(ashish)

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.134 seconds.