Madhya Pradesh High Court
Badri Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 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 15 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1865 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BADRI LAL S/O SHRI KANAJI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE SUNDER PUR P.S
PIPPALRAWA DIST- DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SURENDRA TUTEJA, LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THOROUGH POLICE PIPPALRAWA DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SANTOSH SINGH THAKUR, LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present revision is filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Cr.P.C.
being aggrieved by the judgment passed by 5th ASJ, Dewas in CRA
No.176/2023 on 08.04.2024 wherein the applicant has been convicted under
Section 354, 452, 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year, 6
months, 3 months and fine of Rs.500/-, 500/-, 500/-; in default of payment of
fine, further to undergo RI for 3 months, 1 month & 15 days by confirming the
judgment passed by JMFC Tonkkhurd, Dewas in Case No.172/2018 on
06.07.2023.
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 04.06.2018, the police Pippalrawa,
Dewas received the information that around 11:30 AM prosecutrix was working
in her home then all of sudden the applicant entered her home to outrage her
modesty. He caught her hand and tried to press her breasts. When she opposes
he tried to beat her. Thereafter, the son of the prosecutrix came and the
applicant fled away from the spot. They registered a crime No.149/2018 at P.S.
Pippalrawa under Sections 452, 323, 354 of IPC. After investigation, the
charge-sheet was filed and the accused was convicted and sentenced as
mentioned herein-above.
3. At the outset, counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
not challenging the order of conviction on merit, but is making submissions on
the question of sentence. It is argued that the incident is of year 2014, the
applicant has been facing trial, appeal and revision. He has already undergone
jail sentence of one month 8 days. A prayer is made that the jail sentence be
reduced to the period already undergone and the applicant be granted benefit of
probation.
4. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant 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 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. "
5. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that under
Section 354 of IPC, the jail sentence of one year is prescribed.
6 . In view of the aforesaid judgments, the benefit of probation can be
granted even in those cases where the minimum jail sentence is prescribed.
7. After hearing learned counsel for parties and considering the fact that
the incident had taken place in the year 2018 and the applicant has already
undergone jail sentence of 1 month 8 days out of one year, no purpose would
be served in continuing the applicant in jail for remaining jail sentence.
8. 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 2023. He has already undergone jail sentence of 1 month 8 days out
of one year, no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending and
keeping 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, applicant 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. The applicant is in
jail. He shall be released on complying the aforesaid conditions if not required
in any other case.
9. With the aforesaid, revision is partly allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
