CR.RA/350/2007 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.350 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BANKIM N. MEHTA ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? ========================================= BHOPABHAI PREMJIBHAI KOLI - Petitioner Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent ========================================= Appearance : MR BL TRIVEDI for Petitioner. MR KC SHAH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent. ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BANKIM N. MEHTA Date : 12/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Mr.K.C.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, seeks permission to place on record Jail Report dated 06.02.2008 in respect of the petitioner. Permission as prayed for is granted and the report is ordered to be taken on record. CR.RA/350/2007 2/6 JUDGMENT 2. The petitioner has filed this Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“the Code” for short] and challenged the judgment and order dated 14.09.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chotila, in Criminal Case No.760 of 2003 and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Surendranagar, by his judgment and order dated 23.01.2007 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2006. 3. The petitioner was undergoing sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The petitioner was granted furlough on 18.09.2002 and was released on 03.10.2002. The petitioner was required to surrender to the Jail Authorities on 18.10.2002. However, he did not surrender to the Jail Authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the offence under Section 122(c) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 registered at Chotila Police Station. Therefore, the petitioner remained absconding for 178 days. Thereafter, a complaint under Section 51(1)(B) of the Prisons Act was filed against the petitioner. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 11.09.2003. The petitioner denied having committed the offence and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the evidence was adduced by the prosecution. On conclusion of the trial and after hearing, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence charged against him and CR.RA/350/2007 3/6 JUDGMENT sentenced him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.250=00, in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, Surendranagar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Surendranagar, by his judgment and order dated 23.01.2007, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has preferred present Revision Application. 5. I have heard Mr.B.L.Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr.K.C.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, at length and in great detail. 6. It appears from the Jail Report that when the petitioner was released on temporary bail on 13.06.1998, he remained absconding from 20.06.1998 to 30.12.1998, i.e. for 194 days. Thus, the petitioner is in habit of absconding as and when he is released from the prison for temporary period. It also appears from the Jail Report that the jail conduct of the petitioner is not good. It is true that while exercising revisional powers, the Court cannot look into the conduct of the petitioner, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am constrained to make these observations with regard to the conduct of the petitioner. CR.RA/350/2007 4/6 JUDGMENT 7. It appears that the petitioner was undergoing the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was released on furlough. The petitioner while out of the prison committed another offence. The petitioner came to be arrested in that offence and only thereafter, his presence could be secured. It appears from the judgment of the trial Court that the petitioner was granted furlough and accordingly he was released from the prison. The judgment also indicates that proper sanction was accorded for the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under the Prisons Act. Therefore, there is nothing to indicate that the trial Court committed error in appreciating the evidence adduced before it. It also appears that the petitioner wanted to examine defence witness, but despite being given sufficient opportunities, the petitioner did not examine any witness. Therefore, considering the evidence adduced before it, the learned trial Court did not commit any error in passing the impugned judgment. 8. The petitioner also raised contention with regard to delay in lodging the complaint in the trial Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner remained absconding for 178 days and his presence could be secured only when he was arrested in other offence. Therefore, even assuming that there was any delay, such delay is not fatal to the prosecution case. The petitioner has not given any explanation as to why he did not surrender to the Jail Authorities within the period he was required to surrender. Therefore, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court were justified in passing the impugned judgments and CR.RA/350/2007 5/6 JUDGMENT order. 9. It is settled proposition that an order passed by a trial Court should be sparingly interfered with by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The interference with the order passed by the trial Court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial Court has overlooked the material evidence. Therefore, ordinarily, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the trial Court unless glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgment passed by the trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. 10. In view of the above, the petitioner has failed to point out that the impugned judgments and order are erroneous or perverse or that the Courts below have committed grave error in appreciating the evidence. Therefore, the Revision Application is required to be dismissed. In the result, the Revision Application fails and stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. [Bankim N. Mehta, J.] CR.RA/350/2007 6/6 JUDGMENT Rajendra