Friday, 30 September 2016

When court can order removal of disqualification attached to conviction as per probation of offenders Act?


Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case  and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused petitioner is not the habitual offender, no case is made out against him, I think it just and proper to give benefit of Sec.12 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner so that this order will not come in the way of petitioner in future.


In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed with the following directions:
i) The conviction of the petitioner is maintained.
ii) The accused petitioner is extended the benefit of Sec.12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, so that the impugned judgments will not affect his future in any way.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH



S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PET. NO. 1415/2014
(Mohan Swaroop  Vs. State)
 DATE OF JUDGMENT                28.1.2016
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA




This revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 27.6.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur in cr. appeal no. 56/2011.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that an FIR No.14/1996 for the offences under Secs.279, 337 and 338 IPC. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under the aforesaid offences before the learned Judl. Magistrate, Weir. The learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner, to which he denied and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as manhy as 11 witnesses and got certain documents exhibited. Statement of the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court vide order dated 7.7.2011 has acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Sec.338 IPC but held guilty under Secs.279 and 337 IPC and convicted by giving benedit of Sec.4 of Probation of Offenders Act.

Against the said judgment dated 7.7.2011, an appeal was preferred before the court of Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur but same was dismissed vide order dated 27.6.2014. Hence this revision petition has been preferred by the accused petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that without going into the merits of the case, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that FIR was lodged on 12.1.1996 i.e. 20 years ago from today, he is facing trial since last 20 years, it is his first offence of the life, he is not previously convict and already benefit of Sec.4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act has been given for a period of one year. He has already submitted the bail bonds before the court below as ordered and completed the probation period peacefully. It is also contended that the petitioner is not habitual offender, no case is pending against him,  hence benefit of Sec.12 of the Probation of Offenders Act should also be given to him, so that this order will not come in the way of petitioner in future.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the same and contended that the impugned order passed by the trial court is just and proper. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case  and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused petitioner is not the habitual offender, no case is made out against him, I think it just and proper to give benefit of Sec.12 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner so that this order will not come in the way of petitioner in future.

In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed with the following directions:
i) The conviction of the petitioner is maintained.
ii) The accused petitioner is extended the benefit of Sec.12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, so that the impugned judgments will not affect his future in any way.
iii)The accused petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are canceled and he need not to appear now.
iv)Impugned judgments of the courts below stand modified, as indicated here-in-above.

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.


Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment