Gujarat High Court
Khatri Rasidabanu Abdulsatar vs State Of Gujarat on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/730/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER
PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 730 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
KHATRI RASIDABANU ABDULSATAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
D C BHATT(7618) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR D V KANSARA(7498) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 02/04/2026
JUDGMENT
(1) By way of present criminal revision application the applicant has
assailed the judgment and order dated 25.01.2018, in Criminal
Appeal No.18 of 2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Kachchh at Bhuj, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order
dated 27.03.2017, in Criminal Case No.208 of 2006, passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj – Kachchh, (who shall
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 00:42:45 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/730/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
hereinafter be referred to as “learned trial Court”), whereby,
the learned trial Court has been pleased to acquit the
respondent nos.2 to 6 – original accused, from the charges
levelled against them. Being aggrieved by the above-mentioned
orders the applicant – original complainant has filed the present
revision application against acquittal of the respondent nos.2 to
6 – original accused.
(2) Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the
respondent – State.
(3) The brief facts of the present case are that the applicant –
original complainant has filed a complaint being I-C.R.No.303 of
2005, with Bhuj City Police Station, for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code against the respondent nos.2 to 6 – original accused.
After completion of investigation the Investigating Officer has
filed a charge-sheet against the accused. That the learned
Magistrate has framed charge against the accused and
conducted the trial. After appreciating the evidence produced on
record the learned trial Court was pleased to acquit all the
accused from the charges levelled against them. Thereafter, the
complainant has challenged the said order by filing Criminal
Appeal which came to be dismissed by upholding the order of
acquittal.
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 00:42:45 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/730/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
(4) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
and perusing the record and proceedings it appears that the
learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence led by
the prosecution. It further appears that the learned trial Court
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case between Ms. Ibrahim and Ors., Vs. State of Bihar and Anr,
reported in 2010 CrLJ, 2223, and observed that merely because
the false facts are stated in the document does not automatically
become false document as per Section 464 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and believed that the case for the charges
levelled is not proved. The learned trial Court has also discussed
the evidence of all witnesses and observed regarding admission
of the complainant that the measurement of the land shown in
document was 57.67 sq. mtr which is incorrect. The complainant
has also admitted that the possession receipt at Exhibit 34 was
issued in the name of the respondents by BHADA and the
respondents were given 57.63 sq. mtr., and the respondents
have executed the document of the said measurement. She has
further admitted that the document at Exhibit 28 was executed
after examining the documents on 28.04.2005 and therefore
they are having knowledge about the entry no.212 in the
revenue record and accordingly there is no dishonesty on the
part of the respondents which was also agreed by the learned
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 00:42:45 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/730/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Appellate Court. The learned trial Court has also observed that
after the earthquake, BHADA has not allotted 16.15 sq. mtrs., of
land to Vijayaben Rajgor which is also correct. Therefore, it is
clear that the respondents have sold the land to the complainant
which was allotted to them by BHADA. The entry no.212 in
Exhibit 32 was mutated on 24.10.2012 and not before the
earthquake and thus the respondents have sold the land which
was shown in the document was allotted by BHADA to the
respondents. Further, the complainant and her witnesses are
saying that they have examined all the documents and exhibited
the same and therefore it cannot be believed that they have not
seen the government record and the entries in the Government
record are admitted by them which also suggest that they have
seen the record. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer
examined at Exhibit 185 has not recorded the statement of the
employees of City Survey Officer and BHADA and therefore it
was not ascertained as to how much exact land was allotted to
the respondents. In this way the complainant failed to prove that
the respondents have suppressed the said fact regarding sale of
16.15 sq. mtr to Vijayaben and taken full consideration for 57.63
sq. mtr and handed over only 41.48 sq. mtr of land dishonestly.
(5) In addition the scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and
power under Section 401 of the Code is discretionary and it is
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 00:42:45 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/730/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
required to be used only in exceptional cases where glaring
defect in the procedure and manifest error of law or there has
been miscarriage of justice. Here no any such error is pointed
out or no perversity or illegality is found from the reasons
assigned by both the Courts below, therefore, no case is made
out to upset the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court
and Appellate Court. Moreover, the revisional jurisdiction itself
does not provide reappreciation of evidence and considering the
limited jurisdiction the Court cannot act as Appellate Court.
Hence, no case is made out for interference with the impugned
findings in light of scope of revision laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, reported in
2012 (9) SCC 460.
(6) In view of above, the present Criminal Revision Application
stands dismissed. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back
to the concerned Court forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 00:42:45 IST 2026
[ad_1]
Source link
