Kailash Pal @ Kailash Narayan Raj ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3262 MP

                                                           1
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
                                                  ON THE 8th OF MARCH, 2022

                                          CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1542 of 2022

                               Between:-
                               KAILASH PAL @ KAILASH NARAYAN RAJ PALI S/O
                               SHRI SHIV CHARAN PAL , AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION: PRIMARY TEACHER R/O GRAM
                               SUJANPURA    THANA     PRATHIVPUR     DISTT.
                               TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANT
                               (BY SHRI J.P. SINGROL )

                               AND

                               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
                               PRATHVIPUR DISTT. TIKAMGARH M.P. (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                               (BY SHRI LOKESH JAIN, PANEL LAWYER)

                            T h is appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                            ORDER

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated

30.12.2021 passed in S.T. No. 57/2015 - State of Madhya Pradesh v. Hardev Pal and others by I Additional Judge, to the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh (M.P.); whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 324, I.P.C for causing simple injury by sharp object to Ramratan and instead of imposing imprisonment granted him benefit of Section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and directed him to furnish a bond for one year to maintain peace and to be of good behavior and to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during such period. He is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-.

2. By filing the present appeal the appellant has challenged his conviction and in alternate he prayed that, as benefit of Section 4 of the Act, 1958 has already been extended to him by the Trial Court; therefore, benefit of Section 12 be also Signature SAN Not Verified given to him to the effect that in view of Section 12 of the Act his conviction shall Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI not affect his service conditions adversely. Date: 2022.03.09 12:29:53 IST

3. During the course of argument Mr. Singrol, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not wish to press the appeal on conviction and he would be satisfied if some clarification/order is passed by this Court in the backdrop of Section 12 of the Act, 1958.

4. Section 12 of the Act, 1958 reads as under:

"12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law:

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under Section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence."

5. In view of the lucid provisions made in Section 12 of the Act, 1958 though there is no need of any separate order; however, looking to the grievance of the appellant, this appeal is disposed off with the direction that if there is no violation of terms and conditions of the bail bond furnished by the appellant in compliance of the order of the Trial Court, his conviction shall not suffer disqualification, if any attached to such conviction.

6. Rest of the findings in the impugned judgment are not interfered with.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE vivek