Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1637 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAVI S/O DAYALI SINGH LODHI, AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR M.G. COLONY, STATION
ROAD DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SURENDRA TUTEJA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BNP DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VIRAJ GODHA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner against the
judgment dated 20.3.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Dewas in Criminal Appeal
No.3/2024 affirming the judgment dated 5.12.2023 passed by the CJM, Dewas
in Criminal Case No. 593/2018 convicting petitioner under Section 34(2) of the
M.P. Excise Act and sentencing him to suffer 1 year RI with fine of
Rs.25,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Facts of the case are that on 10.3.2018 police received information
that two persons on motorcycle were in possession of liquor. During search, 60
bulk liters was recovered from their possession.
3 . At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not
challenging the conviction on merit but confining his prayer to reduce the
sentence. It is submitted that incident had taken place in the year 2018 and the
petitioner has been prosecuting trial, appeal and revision since then. The
petitioner has already undergone jail sentence of more than two months. As the
petitioner has no criminal record, therefore, instead of continuing him in jail,
benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 be extended to him. In this
regard, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on decision rendered
by Gwalior Bench in Criminal Revision No. 498/2023 (Jitendra Vs. State of
M.P.) and also on para 13 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Lakhvir Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others decided on
19.1.2021 in Criminal Appeal Nos.47-48 of 2021 which reads as under :
" 13. Even though, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act') prescribes a minimum sentence of
imprisonment for not less than 1 year, an exception was carved out keeping in mind
the application of the Act. In Ishar Das (supra), this Court noted that if the object
of the legislature was that the Act does not apply to all cases where a minimum
sentence of imprisonment is prescribed, there was no reason to specifically provide
an exception for Section 5(2) of the PC Act. The fact that Section 18 of the Act
does not include any other such offences where a mandatory minimum sentence
has been prescribed suggests that the Act may be invoked in such other offences.
A more nuanced interpretation on this aspect was given in CCE vs. Bahubali,
(1979) 2 SCC 279. It was opined that the Act may not apply in cases where a
specific law enacted after 1958 prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, and the
law contains a non-obstante clause. Thus, the benefits of the Act did not apply in
case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted
after the Act. It is in this context, it was observed in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Vikram Das (Supra) that the court cannot award a sentence less than the
mandatory sentence prescribed by the statute. We a r e of the view that the
corollary to the aforesaid legal decisions ends with a conclusion that the benefit of
probation under the said Act is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory
minimum sentence under Section 397 of IPC, the offence in the present case. In
fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1980 ILR (1981)
are in the same context. "
4. Counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence and submits that there is no provision of reducing the minimum jail
sentence.
5. In view of aforesaid judgments, the benefit of probation can be granted
even in those cases where the minimum jail sentence is prescribed.
6. After hearing learned counsel for parties, this Court finds that though
there is no error in the judgment of conviction but the incident had taken place
in the year 2018 and petitioner has been prosecuting trial, appeal and revision
for last 11 years, he has already undergone jail sentence of more than 2 months,
no purpose would be served in keeping the revision pending and remaining the
applicant in jail. Therefore, looking to the facts & circumstances of the case
and the judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench in the case of Jitendra (supra)
a n d aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lakhvir Singh
(supra), in the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner is entitled for benefit
of Probation of Offenders Act. In view of the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, it is directed that on furnishing a bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) of good conduct for a period of
two years to the satisfaction of concerned Magistrate, petitioner be released on
Probation and his further sentence be treated as undergone.
With the aforesaid, this revision stands disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
