Ramesh Gagu Saamatbhai Bakutra vs State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 2026

    0
    10
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Gujarat High Court

    Ramesh Gagu Saamatbhai Bakutra vs State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 2026

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION
    
    
    
    
                              R/CR.RA/277/2019                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
    
                                                                                                                  undefined
    
    
    
    
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
    
                          R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 277
                                                     of 2019
    
    
                          FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
    
    
                          HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
                          ==========================================================
    
                                      Approved for Reporting                    Yes           No
    
                          ==========================================================
                                          RAMESH GAGU SAAMATBHAI BAKUTRA & ANR.
                                                          Versus
                                                    STATE OF GUJARAT
                          ==========================================================
                          Appearance:
                          NISARG S SHAH(8886) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
                          MS.KRINA CALLA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No.
                          1
                          ==========================================================
    
                            CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
    
                                                            Date : 31/07/2026
    
                                                            ORAL JUDGMENT

    1. The present Revision Application is filed at the instance of

    the original accused under Section 397 read with section 401

    SPONSORED

    of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

    2. The applicant original accused have challenged the

    judgment and order dated 28.02.2019, passed by the Court of

    learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj in Criminal

    Appeal No. 7 of 2018, whereby the learned judge has

    concurred with the judgment and order 09.02.2018 passed by

    Page 1 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    the learned 3rd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj, Kutch in

    Criminal Case No. 1777 of 2015, whereby convicting the

    present applicants for the offence punishable under Section

    419 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and

    imposing sentence of one year simple imprisonment with fine

    of Rs. 2000/- each. Hence, the present Revision Application

    assailing the aforesaid orders of conviction.

    3. Considering the grounds raised in the Revision memo and

    submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant, the

    learned Single Judge of this Court vide oral order dated

    19.03.2019, had admitted the Revision Application and by

    interim relief had suspended the sentence imposed pending

    the hearing and final disposal of the present application. The

    learned judge noticing the age of the applicants as well as the

    fact that no antecedents have been brought on record,

    considering the sentence of one year, has enlarged the

    applicants on bail subject to conditions.

    4. The matter was notified under special assignment of old

    targeted cases. With the able assistance of learned advocates

    appearing on record the matter was heard.

    5. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Shah, appearing for the

    applicants has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment

    Page 2 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    and order of conviction by submitting that the essential

    ingredient of cheating is not satisfied. It was submitted that

    even if the prosecution case is taken as it is, the offence under

    Section 419 is not proved as at the most it can be said to be

    an attempt to commit the alleged offence since it was not

    successful. It was further submitted that in the facts of the

    case, the alleged deceit was not made to the supervisor. At

    the time of exam, it would be the supervisor who will be in

    control of the process of conducting the examination in the

    hall. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Kerala High

    Court in the case of Nilesh Ramchandra Japthap Vs. State

    of Kerala, reported in 2024 SCC on line Ker 1627. Inviting

    my attention to the relevant observations, the learned

    advocate had pointed out the essential ingredients of the term

    cheating as defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal

    Code. It was further pointed out that the Court has referred to

    the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram

    Jas Vs. State of U.P reported in (1970) 2 SCC 740. In the

    said case, the oath Commissioner was induced to attest the

    affidavit by wrong identification of affiant by the accused. The

    Hon’ble Supreme Court upon appreciation of the evidence and

    in light of the ingredients of the offence alleged arrived at a

    conclusion that the High Court lost sight of the fact that the

    persons who were cheated or attempted to be cheated as

    Page 3 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    referred to in the charges framed against the accused were

    the office bearers of relief and rehabilitation. There was no

    charge at all relating to any cheating or attempt to cheat the

    Oath Commissioner who had otherwise administered the oath.

    It was submitted that considering the facts of the case as

    projected by the prosecution, it is not even the case of the

    prosecution that the accused No. 2 had returned the answer

    sheet on behalf of the accused No.1. Indisputably, no answer

    sheets written by the accused No. 2 have been recovered. It

    was when the verification with regard to identity of the

    candidates were in process, that the applicant No.2 was

    caught. He has, therefore, submitted that no offence actually

    was committed by the applicants. It was at the most a failed

    attempt to commit the offence. The reliance was placed on

    Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code to contend that by virtue

    of aforesaid provision the offence in such case of attempt

    being failed to commit an offence would be half of the

    sentence of the actual offence if it would have been

    committed. It was, therefore, submitted that if the case of the

    applicants are to be treated covered under Section 511 of the

    Indian Penal Code, they shall be entitled to benefit of

    probation. The attention of this Court was also invited to

    Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. Reliance was placed

    on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

    Page 4 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    case of Lakhvir Singh Etc. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.,

    Neutral Citation 2021 SC 27. It was further argued that the

    offence had taken place inside the examination hall where

    except for student/candidates appearing for exam, no other

    persons were permitted to enter the examination hall. It is an

    undisputed fact that the applicant No.1 was not even present

    in the examination hall so as to attract the offence of

    abatement under Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Even

    otherwise, there is no evidence brought on record to suggest

    in what way he has abated the offence, except the implied

    permission being inferred by the Court given to accused No. 2

    to appear in exam on his behalf. In order to substantiate this

    aforesaid argument, learned advocate has placed reliance

    upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the

    case of State of Gujarat Vs. Khatubhai Limbabhai Pagi

    and Ors. Reported in 2014 SCC Online 15849 equivalent

    to (2014) 55(3) GLR 1919. The attention of this Court was

    invited to the relevant observations made in para 39 of the

    said judgment. It was, therefore, submitted that alternatively

    Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code would be made

    applicable unless his main argument that offence under

    Section 419 is not proved, is rejected.

    6. On conduct, learned advocate had pointed out that the

    conditions on which the present applicants were enlarged on

    Page 5 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    bail by this Court, had been strictly adhered to. In absence of

    any other antecedents reported against the present applicants

    and considering the nature of offence, they are entitled to

    seek probation in view of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders

    Act. It was further submitted that the applicants are settled in

    their respective lives. They are small scale labourers and are

    also sole bread winners of their families. Referring to the

    judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

    Lakhvir Singh (supra), it was pointed out that the age of the

    applicants were around 19 years at the time of the incident

    and were 23 years when convicted. Learned advocate had

    therefore, fairly submitted that the benefit envisaged under

    Section 6 of the Act would not be applicable in the facts of the

    case. He has therefore urged this Court to consider Section 4

    in view of section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, even at

    the Revisional stage, as this Court is conferred with

    jurisdiction to correct any palpable error, infirmity or illegality

    committed by the Courts below.

    7. On the other hand, learned APP Ms. Krina Calla, appearing

    for the respondent State has at the outset pointed out that

    since the essential ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian

    Penal Code are not satisfied to the facts of the case, though

    being initially charged for the offence punishable under

    Section 420 of the Code, the applicants were acquitted for the

    Page 6 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    same. She has further submitted that considering the

    distinguishing features so far as offence under Section 419 of

    the Code is concerned, the prosecution has successfully

    established the element of cheating which is the core

    ingredient of the said offence. It was pointed out that the

    applicant No. 2 was trying to cheat not only the supervisor of

    the examination hall but his act had large implications

    inasmuch as the fact remains that exams were held at the

    instance of State Board where the students appearing in the

    exam compete with each other to qualify to secure their

    position on merits and to get admission as per their respective

    rankings. Considering the above aspect, the act of the

    applicants cannot be confined to the supervisor of the

    examination hall but masses at large. The end result in case if

    the applicant has succeeded would have been that he would

    have secured a higher position compared to meritorious

    students and the person who was otherwise not competent to

    get admitted in a reputed institution would have earned merit

    against the other candidates. She has, therefore, submitted

    that the argument made by learned advocate for the

    applicants that the end result of cheating the supervisor of the

    examination hall being not committed and was merely an

    attempt is misconceived and is irrelevant. As regards the

    judgment relied upon by learned advocate for the applicant on

    Page 7 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    the aforesaid aspect, would therefore be not applicable in the

    distinguished facts of the case. She has, therefore, submitted

    that it was not merely an attempt of an offence. The offence

    was actually committed once the applicant under the fake

    identity impersonating as the accused No.1 has entered into

    the examination hall. Learned APP has relied upon Section

    114 of the Indian Penal Code to contend that the Court can

    always draw inference to presume certain facts even in

    absence of any proof of evidence being brought on record the

    very moment when the applicant No.2 by impersonating

    himself as applicant No.1 entered the examination hall. It is to

    be interpreted that as if the person if present would have

    abated the offence. She has, therefore, submitted that Section

    109 of the Code would not be applicable in the facts of the

    case. She has therefore submitted that the core argument

    raised by learned advocate that it was merely an attempt, and

    therefore, for the purposes of sentence of Section 419 has to

    be read with Section 511 of the Code is concerned is required

    to be rejected.

    8. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the applicant had

    submitted that indisputably the attempt made was not

    successful. He has further submitted that the State Board is

    represented by the person who is in charge of conducting the

    examination. According to the learned advocate the

    Page 8 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    supervisor of the examination hall is in charge of the process.

    As a conductor he has to ensure that proper mode and

    modality as instructed by the Board is followed. He is

    considered as the head of the concerned Center where the

    exam is conducted. Once he enters the examination hall, it

    can be said that the intention of the accused to commit an

    offence is made out. However, the very fact that he was not

    permitted to give the exam at the threshold, in absence of any

    answer sheet being recovered, the offence of cheating was not

    translated. It was further submitted that at the time of hall

    ticket verification the accused was caught. Though in the FIR

    it is averred that exam was scheduled between 10.00 to 13.20

    hours, once the candidate enters into the examination hall the

    protocol demands that before starting of the actual exam, the

    initial time slot would be utilised for the purpose of

    verification of identity of the candidates and it is only when

    the identity of the candidate are verified, the process of

    examination starts. In this regard, learned advocate had

    pointed out that indisputably the prosecution has failed to

    plead that the footage of CCTV cameras were collected to find

    out as to whether the applicant No.2 had actually signed

    across the answer sheet. It was submitted that not an iota of

    evidence in this regard has been brought on record. He has

    therefore, once again urged this Court to reduce the sentence

    Page 9 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    period by treating it as an attempt to commit an offence by

    bearing in mind the provisions of Section 511 of the Code.

    Learned advocate has once again prayed for considering their

    case for probation by considering their reduced sentence of

    less than 7 years.

    9. Considering the arguments of learned advocates for the

    respective parties and noticing the nature of offence and the

    surrounding circumstances, this Court vide order dated

    25.06.2026, has directed the Probation Officer to submit

    report as about current status of the applicants as to how they

    are settled in society, their social background, about adhering

    to the conditions of bail and any involvement in other

    offences, in order to appreciate the aspect 0f reduced

    sentence or grant of probation.

    10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned

    advocates appearing for the respective parties, it would be

    appropriate to consider the essential ingredients of Section

    419 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 419 of the Indian Penal

    Code is a charging Section, providing punishment for cheating

    by personation. Thus, in order to bring home the charge of

    offence under Section 419, the necessary elements of Section

    416 of the Indian Penal Code are required to be proved and

    established by the prosecution. Apart from the aforesaid

    Page 10 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    elements, it is also necessary for the prosecution to prove that

    the person who was deceived has been cheated by such

    personation.

    11. The ingredients for cheating in view of Section 416 of the

    Indian Penal Code are that there should be deception or

    intentionally inducing the victim to do or omit to do anything

    which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived.

    Thus, in the facts of the case, the prosecution was required to

    establish that the person conducting the examination was

    cheated by the applicant No. 2, who pretended to be some

    other person or had represented that he is a person other

    than him, then such person can be charged with the allegation

    of cheating by personation for which punishment under

    Section 419 of the Code is provided of imprisonment of either

    description for a term which may extend to three years, or

    with fine, or with both.

    12. Bearing in mind the aforesaid provision, I have carefully

    considered the findings and reasons assigned by the learned

    Sessions Judge in light of the evidence on record. Having

    appreciated the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned

    Sessions Judge, it is evident that most of the witnesses have

    supported the case of the prosecution except for the panch

    witness. Considering the limited arguments advanced by

    Page 11 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    learned advocate for the applicants, the presence of the

    applicant No. 1 at the time of the incident is not in dispute. As

    against that, the original informant (P.W.No.5) Prakash

    Chhaganlal Thakkar (Exhibit 17) has been examined by the

    prosecution. He was assigned the charge of building

    conductor at the time of incident. Considering his entire

    evidence on record, he has supported the case of the

    prosecution. As against that, no contradictory facts have been

    brought on record by the defence. The other witness viz.

    Rajkumar Champaklal Pandya, has been examined by the

    prosecution as PW No. 6. He was Block Supervisor of the

    examination hall at the time of incident. Appreciating his

    evidence, the prosecution has brought on record the evidence

    with regard to involvement of present applicants inasmuch as

    he has clearly identified the applicant No. 2 before the trial

    Court. He has categorically stated on oath that on suspicion

    he had informed Building Conductor Prakashbhai and in turn,

    Prakashbhai had immediately approached the examination

    hall, whereby the applicant No. 2 was inquired about his

    identity. He has further stated that he has disclosed himself as

    Uttam Prabhu Bakutra a, whereas the actual name of the

    student was Ramesh Bakutra. Thus, the applicant No. 2 was

    found to have impersonated himself as another person.

    Page 12 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026

    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    13. Having appreciated the aforesaid evidence, the argument

    advanced by learned advocate for the applicants that it was

    merely a failed attempt to commit the offence under Section

    419 of Indian Penal Code does not merit. Considering the

    necessary ingredients of Section 416 of the IPC which defines

    cheating by personation, the very fact that the applicant No. 2

    pretended to be someone else, knowingly had substituted

    himself for another person and by making such representation

    while carrying admit card with him and having entered the

    examination hall, he had completed his task of representing

    the other person. In the opinion of this Court, the moment the

    applicant No. 2 had entered the examination hall carrying

    admit card by pretending to be the candidate of admit card,

    the act of personation was achieved. Merely because prior to

    the holding of actual examination, the applicant was caught

    from the spot by the block supervisor and Building Conductor

    i.e. before entering any word in the answer sheet would make

    no difference.

    14. As regards the contention raised by learned advocate for

    the applicants about not having cheated the Building

    Conductor as being caught by the Block Supervisor is

    concerned, the same is also without any merits. It is required

    to be noted that it has transpired from the evidence of Block

    Supervisor that on suspicion he had informed the Building

    Page 13 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    Conductor Prakashbhai, and thereafter, the Building

    Conductor Prakashbhai had approached his examination hall

    and had inquired from the applicant No. 1 about his identity.

    It is at this stage, the act of personation of applicant No. 1

    was disclosed. It is also required to be noted that the core

    task of Block Supervisor is to ensure a fair and honest

    environment in the examination hall for which he is assigned a

    task to collect material related to exam, to verify identity of

    students and their admit cards as well as to distribute papers,

    answer sheets on time. One of the requirements of the

    aforesaid exercise to be undertaken by the Block Supervisor is

    to ensure that the incident of cheating is prevented.

    Considering the aforesaid aspect, merely because no answer

    sheets were handed over to the applicant or there was no

    recovery of any answer sheet from the applicant would have

    no bearing insofar as the chain of events suggesting

    completion of the offence of cheating by personation.

    15. As regards charge of abetment against applicant no.1 is

    concerned, it is required to be noted that the applicant no.1

    has handed over the admit card to the applicant no.1, which

    reflects the active participation of the applicant no.1 in

    conspiration and instigation to commit act of personation by

    applicant no.2. However, it is not in dispute that the applicant

    no.1 was not present at the time of actual offence when

    Page 14 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    implemented. In view thereof, applying the principles laid

    down in the case of Khatubhai Limbabhai Pagi (supra), in

    my view, the essential element of abettor’s presence at such

    commission of offence being absent, the applicant no,2 is

    convicted under section 109 instead of section 114 of the

    Indian Penal Code, as there was abetment by applicant no.1

    previous to commitment of the actual offence.

    16. For the foregoing reason, the revision application is partly

    allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 28.02.2019,

    passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Criminal

    Appeal no.7 of 2018 confirming the judgment and order dated

    17.08.2015, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

    Magistrate in criminal case no. 1777 of 2015 is modified . The

    applicant no.1 Ramesh Gagu Bakutra is hereby convicted for

    the offence punishable under section 109 of Indian Penal Code

    whereas the applicant no.2 Uttam Gagu Bakutra is convicted

    for the offence punishable under section 419 of the Indian

    Penal Code.

    17. This brings me to the aspect of sentence and fine as

    imposed by the courts below while convicting the applicants

    for the offence charged. Having found the applicants guilty of

    offence punishable under section 109 and section 419 of

    Indian Penal Code, the next question which arises for

    Page 15 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    consideration is the sentence to be imposed or alternatively to

    consider their case for probation in view of section 3 and 4 of

    the Probation of Offenders Act, 1959.

    18. Considering the provisions of section 4 of the Probation of

    Offenders Act as well as the sentence of either description for

    a term which may extend to three years being prescribed

    under the aforesaid charge of section 419 read with section

    109 of Indian Penal Code, in my view the applicants can be

    extended benefit of probation. The report dated 30.07.2026,

    submitted by the Probation Officer, Kutch, suggests that the

    applicants are not involved in other offences. The conduct of

    the applicants in the society during these years is reported to

    be good. The certificates in this regard issued by their

    employers and sarpanch of their native village are forming

    part of such a report. Considering the nature of offence, their

    age at the time of incident and their subsequent approach

    towards society, I am inclined to take a lenient view bearing

    in mind the guiding principles laid down by the Hon’ble

    Supreme Court in the case of Lakhvir Singh (supra).

    19. For the foregoing reasons, the following directions of

    grant of probation instead of sentence and fine, are issued :

    19.1 The applicants are directed to remain under supervision

    Page 16 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/CR.RA/277/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

    undefined

    of the Probation Officer, Kutch during a period of one year

    from today. The applicants shall not get involved in any kind

    of illegal activities and shall furnish the details of their

    permanent abode. The applicants shall furnish bonds without

    sureties thereby specifying to abide by the conditions so

    imposed.

    20. With these observations, the present revision application

    stands disposed in aforesaid terms.

    21. Registry is directed to send back the record and

    proceedings to the concerned courts along with writ of this

    order. Copy of the order may also be furnished to the

    Probation Officer, Kutch for observing compliance of

    directions issued.

    (NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
    MARY VADAKKAN

    Page 17 of 17

    Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Aug 05 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:25:27 IST 2026



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here