Hari Singh vs State
2004 Latest Caselaw 208 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. Crl. M.A. Nos. 1521-1522/2004 (for condensation of delay) For the reasons stated in the applications, delay is condoned.

Crl. M.A. Nos. 1521 and 1522/2004 are accordingly allowed and disposed of.

2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 4th August, 2003, of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the learned Judge has modified the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and imposed the fine of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide its order dated 3rd April, 2003 has held the petitioner herein guilty under section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and further vide his order dated 8th April, 2003 sentenced him to undergo RI for six months.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction on merits but submits that this is a fit case where accused can be considered and admitted to the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act. He submits that the incident took place as far back as on 1996. The petitioner has been facing the ordeal of trial for over 4 years and has now settled in the society as a useful citizen. Learned counsel for the State submits that in the facts and circumstances of this case she would not be averse to the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act being extended to the petitioner.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having given my careful consideration to the material available on record, I am of the view that in the present case, the petitioner has suffered the agony of trial lasting for over 4 years. Besides, there is no allegation that the petitioner is a previous convict.

5. Keeping these circumstances in mind and the fact that the offence of which the petitioner has been convicted is not punishable with life imprisonment, he deserves the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In these circumstances, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, the fine imposed on the petitioner is set aside.

6. Having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is considered expedient to release him on probation of good conduct. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner be released for a period of six months on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during such period and, in the meantime, the petitioner shall keep peace and be of good behavior. The requisite bonds to be furnished by the petitioner with the sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court/CMM. The bonds directed to be furnished be furnished within a period of one week failing which the sentence awarded by the trial court shall come into effect. The fine if already paid is ordered to be treated as litigation expenses to the State.

6. With this modification, the order under challenge is upheld. The revision petition stands disposed of.

dusty.