Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kulveer Singh vs State on 28 April, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 177/2000

Kulveer Singh

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi, Amicus Curiae For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

28/04/2022

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. Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae

to argue the matter on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner under

the free legal aid scheme of RSLSA. His remuneration shall be paid

by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules.

3. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred under

Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore respectfully prayed that this bail application be allowed and sentence awarded to the petitioner may be ordered tobe suspended and he may be released on bail."

(2 of 6) [CRLR-177/2000]

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

1991 and the present revision petition has been pending since

2000.

5. Vide impugned judgment dated 07.02.1997 the learned

Additional Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal

Case No.147/91 convicted revisionist-petitioner for the offence

under Section 341, 353 I.P.C. and 3(ii)(d) of Damages to Public

Property Act and sentenced him as under:- (Sentences will run

concurrently).

341 IPC                : 01 month S.I.

353 IPC                : 03 months S.I.

3(ii)(d) of Damages

to Public Property Act: 06 months SI and a fine of Rs.500/-

in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month SI.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that

the offence under Section 341, 353 IPC are punishable with a

maximum imprisonment up to one month & up to two years

respectively and under Section 3(ii)(d) of Damages to Public

Property Act is punishable with a maximum imprisonment up to

five years, therefore, the petitioner may be granted benefit of

Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that

the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents to his

discredit.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits

that the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was

suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide the order dated 07.06.2000,

(3 of 6) [CRLR-177/2000]

passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No.54/2000 and thus, he is on

bail.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits

that in case, if this Court is not inclined to acquit the petitioner of

the charges levelled against him, that looking to his age, absence

of criminal antecedents against him, he is entitled to be extended

the benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act,

1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as per Section 360

Cr.P.C.

"3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.--

When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him 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 so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4, release him after due admonition.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4. "

10. 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

(4 of 6) [CRLR-177/2000]

passed by the learned court below, the revisionist-petitioner is

not entitled for any indulgence by this Court.

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

record of the case.

12. In Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82

the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under;-

"Parliament made it clear that only if the court forms the opinion that it is expedient to release him on probation for his good conduct regard being had to the circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which cannot be sidelined in forming the said opinion is "the nature of the offence."

Thus Parliament has left it to the court to decide when and how the court should form such opinion. It provided sufficient indication that releasing the convicted person on probation of good conduct must appear to the court to be expedient. The word "expedient" had been thoughtfully employed by the Parliament in the section so as to mean it as "apt and suitable to the end in view". In Block's Law Dictionary the word "expedient" is defined as "suitable and appropriate for accomplishment of a specified object" besides the other meaning referred to earlier. In State of Gujarat v. Jamnadas G. Pabri & Ors., AIR (1974) SC 2233 a three Judge Bench of this Court has considered the word "expedient''. Learned Judges have observed in paragraph 21 thus:

"Again, the word 'expedient' used in this provisions, has several shades of meaning. In one dictionary sense, 'expedient' (adj.) means 'apt and suitable to the end in view', 'practical and efficient'; 'politic'; 'profitable'; 'advisable', 'fit, proper and suitable to the circumstances of the case'. In another shade, it means a device 'characterised by mere utility rather than principle conducive to special advantage rather than to what is universally right' (see Webster's New International Dictionary)."

(5 of 6) [CRLR-177/2000]

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

198, while reiterating the ratio decidendi laid down in Dalbir

Singh (supra), 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 is conscious of the fact that the offence under

Section 341, 353 IPC are punishable with a maximum

imprisonment up to one month & up to two years respectively and

under Section 3(ii)(d) of Damages to Public Property Act is

punishable with a maximum imprisonment up to five years,

therefore, Section 3 of the Act of 1958 will apply in the present

case.

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

the revisionist-petitioner has any criminal antecedents. Apart

therefrom, on an overall consideration of the facts and

circumstances of the case, the revisionist-petitioner deserves to

be granted the benefit under Section 3 of the Act, more