Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Krishan Lal vs State on 28 April, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

(1 of 7) [CRLR-691/1999]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 691/1999

Krishan Lal

----Petitioner Versus State

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 10/1999 Krishan Lal

----Petitioner Versus State

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HSS Kharlia assisted by Ms. Kinjal Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP Mr. NL Joshi

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

28/04/2022

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.

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 691/1999

This Court after careful examination of record and hearing

submissions of both the parties in appeal against the same

impugned order is arrived at a considered conclusion that in the

given circumstances it would be appropriate to upheld the

conviction under Section 326 IPC as well as other offences as per

the impugned order, and further accused-persons have been

granted relief of substitution of sentence by the sentence already

(2 of 7) [CRLR-691/1999]

undergone is a proposition, which governs the present revision

petition also where the same parties had challenged the same

impugned order seeking conviction under Section 307 IPC.

In light of the aforesaid observations and the order passed in

the appeal, it is a fit case where no interference is called for. The

revision, thus, is dismissed.

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.10/1999

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:-

"it is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed with and the sentence and conviction passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, in Sessions Case No.56/95 may kindly be set-aside and quashed."

2. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1995 and the present appeal has been pending since 1999.

3. Vide impugned judgment dated 16.12.1998 the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingnagar, Sri Ganganagar in

Sessions Case No.56/95 convicted accused-appellant for the

offence under Sections 352 IPC & Section 27 of Indian Arms Act

and sentenced as under:-

352 IPC : 03 months R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-

in default of payment of fine to further undergo 25 days S.I.

27 of Indian Arms Act : 03 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-

in default of payment of fine to further undergo 25 days S.I.

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

offence under Section 352 IPC is punishable with a maximum

imprisonment up to three months & under Section 27 of Indian

(3 of 7) [CRLR-691/1999]

Arms Act is punishable with a maximum imprisonment up to seven

years, therefore, the appellant may be granted benefit of

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the

appellant does not have any criminal antecedents to his discredit.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant however, makes a

limited prayer that the accused-appellant may be granted benefit

under Section 4 of 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 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.

(4 of 7) [CRLR-691/1999]

(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

present 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 -appellant is 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.

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."

(5 of 7) [CRLR-691/1999]

10. 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... "

10.1 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..."

10.2 In Lakhvir Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 763 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, with regard to the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 vis-a-vis those Acts wherein a minimum sentence of imprisonment has been prescribed by the legislature, observed as under:-

"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

(6 of 7) [CRLR-691/1999]

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 v. 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.5 It is in this context, it was observed in State of Madhya Pradesh v. 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 Indian Penal Code, the offence in the present case. In fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab ILR (1981) P & H 1 are in the same context."

11. This Court is conscious of the fact that the maximum

punishment that may be awarded under Section 352 IPC is

punishable with a maximum imprisonment up to three months &

under Section 27 of Indian Arms Act is punishable with a

maximum imprisonment up to seven years, therefore, Section 4 of

the Act of 1958 will apply in the present case.

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

the accused-appellant has any criminal antecedents. Thus, the

accused-appellant is entitled to the benefit under the Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958.

                                                                             (7 of 7)                [CRLR-691/1999]



                                   12.1    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 Arvind Mohan (supra), Mohd. Hashim

(supra) and in Lakhvir Singh, and by this Hon'ble Court in Brij

Lal (supra) deems it appropriate to extend the benefit of the Act

to the accused-appellant.

13. Resultantly, the present appeal is partly allowed. While

maintaining conviction of present accused-appellant for the

offence under Section 352 IPC & Section 27 of Indian Arms 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 shall be released on

probation, under Section 4 of the Act, upon his furnishing a