Bheru Lal @ Sagar And Anr vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 5806 Raj

(1 of 5) [CRLA-245/2016]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 245/2016

Balu Lal And Ors.

----Appellant Versus State

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 261/2016 Bheru Lal @ Sagar And Anr.

----Appellant Versus State

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shreyash Ramdev Mr. Ankit Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bhati, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

21/04/2022

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year

2012 and the present appeal has been pending since 2016.

3. Vide impugned judgment dated 01.03.2016 the learned

Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge No.1) (Electricity Act

Cases), Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.22/2014 convicted the

accused-appellants namely Balu Lal, Narain Lal, Chhotu Lal @ Foru

and Bheru Lal @ Sagar for the offences under Sections 136 & 140

(2 of 5) [CRLA-245/2016]

of Electricity Act and sentenced them to undergo two years S.I.

and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of which they were

to further undergo one month simple imprisonment (for Section

136); imposed a fine of Rs.10000/- in default of payment of

which, to undergo two months S.I. (For Section 140); and

accused-appellant Ramesh was convicted for the offence under

Section 137 of Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo two years

S.I. and a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of which to

undergo further one month S.I. (for Section 137).

4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the

accused-appellant do not have any criminal antecedents to their

discredit.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submits

that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants was

suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide the order dated 16.03.2016

& 29.03.2016 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of

Sentence Applications No. 300/2016 and 371/2016 respectively,

and thus, they are on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants however, makes

a limited prayer that the accused-appellants may be granted

benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

"4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.--

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is

(3 of 5) [CRLA-245/2016]

expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3)...

(4)...

(5)... "

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the

appeals and submits that looking to the overall facts and

circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order

passed by the learned court below, the accused-appellants are not

entitled for any indulgence by this Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

9. In Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas

(1974) 4 SCC, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

"The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society.

(4 of 5) [CRLA-245/2016]

In recalcitrant cases, punishment has to be deterrent so that others similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of crime. But the novice who strays into the path of crime ought, in the interest of society, be treated as being socially sick. Crimes are not always rooted in criminal tendencies and their origin may lie in psychological factors induced by hunger, want and poverty. The Probation of Offenders act recognises the importance of environmental influence in the commission of crimes and prescribes a remedy whereby the offender can be reformed and rehabilitated in society."

9.1 In Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan RLW 2022 Raj 945, a

Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:-

"Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act nature of offence is one of the major-criteria for determining whether benefit of this provision should be given to the concerned offender or not. His age would be another relevant factor and the circumstance in which the offence was committed may be 3rd important consideration... "

9.2 In Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2017) 2 SCC

198, while reiterating the ratio decidendi laid down in Dalbir

Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82, the Hon'ble

Apex Court observed as under:

"... The Court has further opined that though the discretion as been vested in the court to decide when and how the court should form such opinion, yet the provision itself provides sufficient indication that releasing the convicted person on probation of good conduct must appear to the Court to be expedient..."

(5 of 5) [CRLA-245/2016]

10. This Court observes that there is no material on record that

the accused-appellants have any criminal antecedents. Thus, the

accused-appellants are entitled to the benefit under the Probation

of Offenders Act, 1958.

10.1 Thus, this Court, after taking into due consideration the

legislative intent of the Act and the decisions rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Hashim (supra), deems it

appropriate to extend the benefit of the Act to the accused-

appellants.

11. Resultantly, the present criminal appeals are partly allowed.

While maintaining the conviction of the present accused-appellants

for the offences under Sections 136, 137 & 140 of Electricity Act,

as recorded by the learned Court below in the impugned

judgment, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the

said judgment, and directs that the appellants shall be released on

probation, under Section 4 (while considering Section 6) of the

Act, upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to

the satisfaction of the learned trial court with a further

undertaking that they shall maintain peace and good behaviour for

a period of two years and shall not repeat the offence. The

appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds

stand discharged accordingly. All pending applications stand

disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back

forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

47-48-Zeeshan/Jitender

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)