Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dinesh vs State on 7 July, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

(1 of 5) [CRLR-154/2006]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 154/2006

Dinesh

----Petitioner Versus State

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

07/07/2022

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

1996 and the present petition has been pending since 2006.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment

dated 18.02.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Nathdwara in Criminal Appeal No.10/05 (Dinesh Vs. State of

Rajasthan) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has partly

been allowed and the petitioner was acquitted for the conviction

for the offence under Section 420 IPC as well as under Sections 78

and 80 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, while maintaining

the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 417

and under Section 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act,

sentencing him to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of

Rs.1000/- failing which, the petitioner was ordered to undergo 10

days' additional imprisonment under Section 417 IPC and

sentenced him to one month simple imprisonment with a fine of

(2 of 5) [CRLR-154/2006]

Rs.1000/- failing which, he was ordered to undergo 7 days'

additional imprisonment for the offence under Section 79 of the

Trade and Merchandise Marks Act against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2005 passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nathdwara in Criminal

Regular Case No.129/1997 whereby the petiioner was convicted

for the offenced under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and under

Sections 78 and 80 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958

sentencing him with six months simple imprisonment with a fine

of Rs.1000/- failing which to further undergo 10 days'

imprisonment for the offence under Section 417 IPC and one year

simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence

under Section 420 IPC failing which, to further undergo 20 days'

additional imprisonment and one month simple imprisonment with

a fine of Rs.1000/- failing to pay further 10 days' additionnal

imprisonment for the offence under Section 78 of the Trade and

Merchandise Marks Act and a fine of Rs.500/- failing to pay to

further undergo 5 days' imprisonment for the offence under

Section 80 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 with set

of Section 48 of Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that

the petitioner do not have any criminal antecedents to his

discredit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

sentence awarded to the petitioner was suspended by this Hon'ble

Court vide the order dated 24.02.2006 passed in S.B. Criminal

Misc. Application No.119/2006, and thus, he is on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in

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

(3 of 5) [CRLR-154/2006]

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. "

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

submissions and submits that looking to the overall facts and

circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders

passed by the learned courts below, the petitioner is not entitled

for any indulgence by this Court.

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

record of the case.

(4 of 5) [CRLR-154/2006]

8. 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)."

8.1 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:

(5 of 5) [CRLR-154/2006]

"...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..."

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

the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. Apart therefrom, on

an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the

case, the petitioner deserves to be granted the benefit under

Section 3 of the Act, more particularly, in view of the legislative

intent of the Act.

9.1 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 Dalbir Singh (supra) and Mohd. Hashim

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

1958 to the petitioner.

10. Resultantly, the present revision petition is partly allowed.

While maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner, 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 petitioner shall be released, after

due admonition, under Section 3 of the Act. 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.