Court grants probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act adopting a reformative approach.

The applicants were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manavadar, in Criminal Case No. 327 of 2013 on February 7, 2018

Applicant No. 1 was found guilty under Sections 323, 324 read with 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, receiving a three-year simple imprisonment sentence

Applicants No. 2, 3, and 4 were convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act (for Applicant 2), receiving one-month simple imprisonment

These convictions were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2014

The applicants subsequently filed this revision application challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts

During the pendency of the revision, a report from the Chief Probation Officer, Junagadh, was sought regarding the conduct of the applicants

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act based on reformative penology

The court primarily applied the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which limits interference to cases of glaring procedural defects, manifest errors of law, or miscarriage of justice

It relied on the precedent Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander (2012 (9) SCC 460), establishing that a revisional court cannot act as an appellate court to re-appreciate evidence

Furthermore, the court applied the reformative principles of penology under Section 360(1)(iii) of the CrPC and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which allow for the rehabilitation of offenders through probation in lieu of immediate punishment

The Court observed that the lower courts reached concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the applicants.

In exercising its limited revisional jurisdiction, the Court found no perversity or manifest error in the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge that would warrant a reversal of the conviction

However, the Court pivoted to a reformative approach, emphasizing rehabilitation and societal interest

The Court noted that 13 years had passed since the date of the incident without the applicants engaging in further criminal activity

Crucially, the Chief Probation Officer’s report dated March 27, 2026, confirmed the applicants' good conduct and recommended they be granted probation

The Court reasoned that a reformative approach was preferable to harsh punishment to secure justice and facilitate the offenders' reintegration into society

The Court directed that the applicants be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year

This release is contingent upon each applicant executing a probation bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety of like amount within 15 days

The applicants are required to maintain peace and appear for sentencing if called upon during the one-year period

The revision application was disposed of accordingly