Munshi vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3824 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 390/2018

Munshi S/o Dalchand, R/o Khedli, Police Station Roopwas,
Bharatpur, Raj.
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                  Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2.     Laxman @ Kalla S/o Shri Geetam, R/o Dhana Khedli,
       Police Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur.
3.     Ramroop S/o Amar Singh, R/o Dhana Khedli, Police
       Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur.
4.     Rajwati W/o Shri Geetam, R/o Dhana Khedli, Police
       Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur.
5.     Ramu S/o Sh. Geetam, R/o Dhana Khedli, Police Station
       Roopwas, District Bharatpur.
                                                               ----Respondents

For Complainant- : Mr. Mayank Kumar Choudhary Petitioner(s) For State : Mr. Imran Khan, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

17/08/2021

1. Complainant-petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition

aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2018 passed by Additional

Sessions Judged No.2, Bayana, Camp Roopwas, District Bharatpur

Rajasthan whereby Appeal preferred by the Accused-respondents

No. 2 to 5 was partly allowed and while holding the conviction,

respondents were given benefit of probation under Section 4 of

the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

2. It is contended by counsel for the complainant-petitioner that

accused-respondents were convicted under Section 323, 341 &

325 read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced for one year

(2 of 2) [CRLR-390/2018]

rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-. There was no

justification for the appellate Court to give benefit of probation to

the accused-respondents.

3. Counsel for the complainant-petitioner has relied on Section

11 of the said Act and has argued that High Court in the exercise

of its power of revision has power to set aside the order passed

under Section 3 & 4 of the Act and in lieu thereof can pass

sentence on such offender according to law.

4. I have considered the contentions and have perused the

judgment passed by the Court below.

5. As far as conviction of the accused-respondents is

concerned, the same has been confirmed by both the Courts and

does not call for any interference. The maximum sentence

awarded by the trial Court was one year. As per the Section 4 of

the Act, Courts have power to release the offender on probation.

Section 11 of the Act empowers the Appellate Court to pass an

order under the Probation of Offenders Act.

6. Taking note of the fact that sentence imposed is one year,

Appellate Court has not committed any illegality in giving benefit

of probation to the accused-respondents and the order passed by

the Appellate Court does not call for any interference, hence no

ground is made out for entertaining the revision petition.

7. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Stay

application also stands disposed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /23

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)