Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sobha Ram vs State on 22 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 352/2001
Sobha Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RK Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
22/04/2022
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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has removed his encroachment and on 09.07.2001, he had made
an undertaking that he was prepared to surrender the possession
of all the vacant land lying on the constructed portion in question.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in
pursuance of his assurance to this Court on 09.07.2001, the
petitioner has already acted upon and removed all his
encroachment.
3. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year
1994 and the present revision has been pending since 2001.
4. Vide impugned judgment dated 28.06.2001 the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Appeal Case
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:37:54 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLR-352/2001]
No.5/1999 convicted the petitioner and affirmed the judgment
dated 22.01.1999 for the offence under Section 91(6) of Land
Revenue Act and sentenced him to undergo 1 year S.I. along with
a fine of Rs.100/- default in payment of which he was to further
undergo 7 days.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the
accused petitioner do not have any criminal antecedents to his
discredit.
6. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner further submits
that the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner was
suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide the order dated 09.07.2001
and thus, he is on bail.
7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner however, makes a
limited prayer that the accused-appellant(s) 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
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
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:37:54 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLR-352/2001]
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)... "
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
appeal 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-petitioner is not
entitled for any indulgence by this Court.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
10. 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.
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
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:37:54 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLR-352/2001]
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."
10.1 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... "
10.2 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..."
13. This Court observes that there is no material on record that
the accused-petitioner has any criminal antecedents. Thus, the
accused-petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958.
13.2 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
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:37:54 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLR-352/2001]
appropriate to extend the benefit of the Act to the accused-
petitioner.
14. Resultantly, the present petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the conviction of the present accused-petitioner for
the offence under Section Section 91(6) of Land Revenue 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 appellant(s) shall be released on
probation, under Section 4 (while considering Section 6) of the
Act, upon his 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 he shall maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of
two years and shall not repeat the offence. The petitioner is on
bail. He need not surrender. His 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.
83-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
