Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranjeet vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 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 21 st OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2284 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RANJEET S/O PHARALAD MALIWAD, AGED ABOUT 18
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOR VILL. KARONDIYA,
THESIL BARWAHA DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANISH YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BALWADA DIST.
KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SANTOSH SINGH THAKUR - PP)
This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner against the
judgment dated 29/4/2024 passed by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Barwaha Distt.
West Nimar in Criminal Appeal No.17/2024 affirming the judgment dated
15.7.2022 passed by the JMFC, Barwaha Distt. West Nimar in Criminal Case
No.606/2016 convicting applicant under Section 354 of IPC and sentencing
him to suffer two years RI with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation.
2 . At the outset, counsel for the applicant submits that he is not
challenging the conviction on merit, but confining his prayer on the question of
sentence. It is argued that the incident is of year 2016 and during the pendency
of Criminal Appeal an application for compounding was filed. The same was
verified. However, the appellate court did not allow the compounding
because the offence u/S.354 IPC is non compoundable. The appeal was
partly allowed and the applicant was acquitted u/S.323 of IPC on the ground of
compounding.
3. Counsel for State supports the order of conviction and sentence.
4. So far the conviction is concerned, the same is proved by the
prosecution beyond doubt. The prosecution case was supported by the
prosecutrix PW.3 and her husband PW.2. This Court does not find any error
in the order of conviction.
5. So far the sentence is concerned, counsel for State submits that the
offence u/S.354 IPC is non compoundable and minimum jail sentence of one
year is prescribed under this section. The applicant has already undergone jail
sentence of 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 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 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. "
6. In view of 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, this Court finds that though
there is no error in the judgment of conviction but the incident had taken place
in the year 2016 and applicant has been prosecuting trial, appeal and revision
for last 8 years, he has already undergone jail sentence of one 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)
a n d 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.
8. With the aforesaid, this revision stands disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
