HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 390/2018
Munshi S/o Dalchand, R/o Khedli, Police Station Roopwas,
Bharatpur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Laxman @ Kalla S/o Shri Geetam, R/o Dhana Khedli,
Police Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur.
3. Ramroop S/o Amar Singh, R/o Dhana Khedli, Police
Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur.
4. Rajwati W/o Shri Geetam, R/o Dhana Khedli, Police
Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur.
5. Ramu S/o Sh. Geetam, R/o Dhana Khedli, Police Station
Roopwas, District Bharatpur.
----Respondents
For Complainant- : Mr. Mayank Kumar Choudhary Petitioner(s) For State : Mr. Imran Khan, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 17/08/2021
1. Complainant-petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judged No.2, Bayana, Camp Roopwas, District Bharatpur Rajasthan whereby Appeal preferred by the Accused-respondents No. 2 to 5 was partly allowed and while holding the conviction, respondents were given benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
2. It is contended by counsel for the complainant-petitioner that accused-respondents were convicted under Section 323, 341 & 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced for one year (Downloaded on 19/08/2021 at 09:57:06 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLR-390/2018] rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-. There was no justification for the appellate Court to give benefit of probation to the accused-respondents.
3. Counsel for the complainant-petitioner has relied on Section 11 of the said Act and has argued that High Court in the exercise of its power of revision has power to set aside the order passed under Section 3 & 4 of the Act and in lieu thereof can pass sentence on such offender according to law.
4. I have considered the contentions and have perused the judgment passed by the Court below.
5. As far as conviction of the accused-respondents is concerned, the same has been confirmed by both the Courts and does not call for any interference. The maximum sentence awarded by the trial Court was one year. As per the Section 4 of the Act, Courts have power to release the offender on probation. Section 11 of the Act empowers the Appellate Court to pass an order under the Probation of Offenders Act.
6. Taking note of the fact that sentence imposed is one year, Appellate Court has not committed any illegality in giving benefit of probation to the accused-respondents and the order passed by the Appellate Court does not call for any interference, hence no ground is made out for entertaining the revision petition.
7. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J ARTI SHARMA /23 (Downloaded on 19/08/2021 at 09:57:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)