Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 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 16 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2016 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAVI S/O ASHOK GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 302, IBA COLONY, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION CIVIL LINE
DISTT.- DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SHASHIKANT BHATI - G.A.)
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 by the judgment dated 22.4.2024 passed by III Additional
Sessions Judge, Dewas in Criminal Appeal No.88/2023 affirming the judgment
dated 17.03.2023 passed by the JMFC, Dewas in Criminal Case No. 2653/2017
convicting petitioner under Section 9(2) r/w 6 of Madhya Pradesh Govansh
Vadh Pratisheth Adhiniyam, 2004 and sentencing him to suffer 6 months
imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- and 3 months imprisonment in lieu of fine
amount.
2. That, as per prosecution case, on 14.11.2017 respondent got
information that pickup vehicle bearing registration No. MP 41 GA 1537 is
illegally carrying the young bulls for the purpose of slaughtering. Thereafter the
respondent checked the aforesaid vehicle at Bima Road square where 5 young
bulls were found. When the driver was asked about the permit, he totd that he
does not have a permit. After which crime No. 469/2017 was registered against
the driver Shiva for the offence under sections 4,6,9 of M.P.Govansh Vadh
Pratishedh Adhiniyam. During investigation, the petition has also been
implicated on the basis of memorandum under section 27 of Evidence Act of
Shiva merely because the said vehicle is owned by the petitioner.
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 2017 and the
petitioner has been prosecuting trial, appeal and revision since then. The
applicant has already undergone jail sentence of about one month. 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 minimum jail sentence prescribed under section
9(2) r/w sec. 6 of M.P.Govansh Vadh Pratisheth Adhiniyam is of 6 months.
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 2017, the applicant is first offender having no criminal record and he
has already undergone jail sentence of about 1 month, 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
MK
