Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 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 14 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1718 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SANDEEP S/O PURANSINGH BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 23
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE BAVI,
P.S. BALWADA, TEHSIL BARWAH, DISTT. KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI NILESH DAVE - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BALWADA,
DISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI SUDHANSHU VYAS- 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 under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C
by being aggrieved from the judgment dated 20.03.2024 passed by Third
Additional Sessions Judge, Badwah District West Nimar Mandleshar in Criminal
Appeal No.69/2022 affirming the judgment dated 15.09.2023 passed by the
CJM, Badwah in Criminal Case No. RCT No.1343/2022 convicting petitioner
under Section 354 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer 1 year RI with fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
2. That, as per prosecution case, on 21/08/2022 at around 05 O'clock in
the evening, complainant lodged the FIR alleging that she was returning from
forest after the grazing her cattle where on the way of Ranchhod's field
applicant wanted to talk to her and after denying he caught hold her hands and
tried to outrage her modesty. When she cried the applicant fled away. She told
the incident to her husband Ashok. Thereafter P.S. Balwada, Distt. Khargone,
M.P. has registered the offence u/s 354, 354(A) of I.P.C. at Crime No. 178/22
against applicant and after marshaling of evidence applicant was found guilty u/s
354 of IPC for 01 Year RI. After that applicant moved a criminal appeal before
appellate court and appellate court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the
order passed by learned JMFC Barwah, Distt. West Nimad, Mandleshwar,
M.P.
3 . At the outset, counsel for the applicant 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 2022 and the
applicant has been prosecuting trial, appeal and revision since then. The
applicant has already undergone jail sentence two months and ten days. As the
applicant 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 o f 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 are 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 2022, he has already undergone jail sentence of 2 months and 10
days, 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) and 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, applicant be
released on Probation and his further sentence be treated as undergone.
With the aforesaid, this revision stands disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
