Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 729 (GUJ)

Gobarbhai Nathubhai Baraiya v. State of Gujarat

2013-12-12

S.H.VORA

body2013
JUDGMENT : S.H. Vora, J. Rule. Ms. Jhaveri, learned A.P.P. waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent – State. 2. The petitioner (original accused), by way of present Criminal Revision Applications filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenges judgment and order dated 21.1.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Appeal Nos.83 of 2012 to 110 of 2012 preferred under section 374 of the Code, whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the sentence and conviction recorded by the learned CJM, Bhavnagar in Criminal Case Nos.6276 of 2008 to 6284 of 2008, 6607 of 2008 to 6611 of 2008, 6738 of 2008 to 6744 of 2008 and 6782 of 2008 to 6788 of 2008, whereby the petitioner was convicted and fined for the offences punishable under sections 408, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 477 of A of the I.P.C. 3. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing today. 4. Since common question of law and facts arises in this group of matters, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5. I have heard submissions of learned advocate Mr. S.C. Patel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Ms. Jhaveri for the State. I have minutely examined the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Unfortunately, the learned Sessions Judge has not assigned any reason worth the name while accepting the order passed by the learned C.J.M. In each memo of appeal, more particularly in para Nos.7 to 16 and 18, the petitioner took various contentions on facts and on law, which remained unanswered at the hands of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has not discussed any of the contentions so raised by the petitioner and consequently there is no finding about validity and legality of the various contentions raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal. Under the circumstances, this Court would have no occasion to examine the legality or otherwise of the impugned order. Needless to say that it is legal duty of a judicial officer to record each contention raised by the litigant and to give findings thereon after appreciating the evidence and after applying relevant principles of law with respect of subject matter in question. Needless to say that it is legal duty of a judicial officer to record each contention raised by the litigant and to give findings thereon after appreciating the evidence and after applying relevant principles of law with respect of subject matter in question. Unfortunately, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the order in a very mechanical manner and thus, the liberty of a citizen is taken away by passing unreasoned judgment and order and upheld the conviction recorded against the present petitioner. Under the circumstances, the impugned order becomes illegal and perverse and therefore, this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment in exercise of powers under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code. 7. On careful perusal of the relevant provisions contained in section 374 of the Code, it can be seen that section 374 provides for an appeal by an accused against judgment of conviction. It is well settled principles of law that the accused invariably would be challenging legality and validity of the judgment impugned and the powers of the appellate Court are wide and the appellate Judge is required to re-appreciate the evidence on record and record his findings. Keeping in mind the statutory provisions and settled principles of law, on careful perusal of para 5 of the judgment in each appeal, it is seen that there is absolute no re-appreciation of evidence on record by the learned Sessions Judge and also not left anything on record in the form of reasons for arriving at said conclusion. It is also pertinent to mention that appeal before the Sessions Court is the final form and forum for an accused to urge for re-appreciation of evidence on record and the learned Sessions Judge is required to re-appreciate the evidence as stated earlier and record his findings thereon. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the appellate Court cannot be stated to be in conformity with the statute, law and precedent. Under the circumstances, it would be essential for the ends of justice, if the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge for rehearing. 8. Under the circumstances, it would be essential for the ends of justice, if the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge for rehearing. 8. Under the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the judgment and order dated 21.1.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Appeal Nos.83 of 2012 to 110 of 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to rehear the appeals afresh on its merit after extending opportunity to both the sides. The learned Sessions Judge is further directed to record each contention that may be raised by the petitioner and also submissions of the defence and further directed to give specific findings on each contention that may be raised before it after applying appropriate provisions of law and principles. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. 9. Registry to keep copy of this order in Criminal Revision Application Nos.299 of 2013 to 325 of 2013. Petitions allowed.