Ramkumar vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 879 MP

                                           1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                                      BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                      ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2023
                  CRIMINAL REVISION NO.746 OF 2007

       BETWEEN:-

1.     RAMKUMAR    S/O   SHRI    TULSIRAM
       RAGHUVANSHI , AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
       OCCUPATION:   AGRICULTURIST,    R/O
       VILLAGE MANDI NAMDAR POLICE
       STATION SADORA, DISTT. ASHOKNAGAR
       (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.     RAMKRISHAN S/O SHRI TULSIRAM
       RAGHUVANSHI , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
       OCCUPATION:   AGRICULTURIST,   R/O
       VILL.MANDI   NAMDAR,   P.S.SADORA,
       DISTT.ASHOKNAGAR          (MADHYA
       PRADESH)

                                                               ........PETITIONERS
       (BY SHRI SHIVENDRA SINGH- ADVOCATE)

       AND

       THE STATE OF M.P. POLICE THANA
       SADORA,    DISTT.   ASHOKNAGAR
       (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               ........RESPONDENT

       (BY SHRI G.P. CHAURASIA- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2

                                      ORDER

This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 07.09.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar, (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.392/2007, affirming the order dated 05/07/2007 passed in Criminal Case No.375/2006 by JMFC, Ashoknagar, , whereby the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as under:- -

          Section               Sentence            Fine (Rs.)           Default
                                                                      Stipulation
      498-A of IPC               1 Year RI            500/-                -

Aggrieved of the said judgment, this revision has been filed by the petitioners before this Court on the ground that the Courts below relied upon inconsistent and contradictory evidence and convicted them. There are lots of contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. The petitioners are aged about 28 years and 35 years respectively and no antecedents has been put forth by the prosecution, therefore, the Courts below should have given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C. To them and further not recorded any reasons as specified in Section 361 of Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lakhanlal @ Lakhan Singh vs. State of M.P. decided on 04/04/2019 in Criminal Appeal No.1306/2013.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Section 360(1) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

"360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition.-

(1) When any person not under twenty- one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of

seven years or less, or when any person under twenty- one years of age or any woman is- convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three years) as the Court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

Provided that where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that the powers conferred by this section should be exercised, he shall record his opinion to that effect, and submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, forwarding the accused to, or taking bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the manner provided by sub- section (2).

As per the aforesaid provision, said Section contemplates as to which offender is entitled to the benefit of probation and on what conditions. It contemplates that firstly, if any person not under twenty- one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less; and secondly, when any person under twenty- one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is entitled to the benefit of probation. Both categories of offenders have to further satisfy that he is not a previous convict; satisfaction of the Court having regard to the age, character or antecedents of the offender and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed. The court being satisfied can order, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, that he be released on his entering into a bond with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three years) and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

Provisions of Section 361 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory and if trial Court is of the opinion that order to release on probation is not advisable, he has to assign reasons for non-giving the benefit. Beside this, as per Section 360(4) of Cr.P.C., this benefit can be awarded by the appellate Court or by the High Court while exercising its powers of revision.

In case in hand, offence pertains to domestic dispute wherein petitioner No.1 is alleged to have harassed his wife while petitioner No.2 is alleged to have harassed his daughter-in-law due to non-satisfaction of demand of dowry. This petition is pending since 2007 and p etitioners have suffered ordeal of trial and appeal. Along with charge-sheet, prosecution has not filed any antecedents of the petitioners that they are having criminal record or they are of bad character. There is no evidence that petitioners were involved in any offence during this period.

In view of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, benefit of probation ought to have been extended to the petitioners which trial Court as well as appellate Court have not extended. Therefore, this revision is disposed of in terms of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and it is ordered that petitioners be released on probation of good character for a period of one year on furnishing personal bond before the trial Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the orders on the conditions that they will maintain peace in the area and will not commit any offence during this period. Probation Officer is also directed to submit quarterly report of the petitioners before the concerning trial Court about their activities.

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision stands disposed of. Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ADNAN

Digitally signed by MADHU SOODAN PRASAD

MADHU DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,

SOODAN 2.5.4.20=d6b55bd7b8b095e45b0d58a87 6e9dd057f98aa4a26968acc4ea58035d05 b0084, pseudonym=21DE0DCEA1B5577FE9666

PRASAD E96A639DACD88861D95, serialNumber=DE0210C75DA91FC2450C FA0F0690B6A99A0171130FC18D279EAD F9DF4DBD2F58, cn=MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Date: 2023.01.19 09:28:12 +05'30'