Anil Son Of Phoolchand vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6177 Raj/2

                                          Reportable
       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6782/2022

Anil Son Of Phoolchand, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Indra Gandhi
Colony, Behind Vigyan Nagar, Kota (Raj).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor.
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Rajesh Gadwal
                                 Mr. Waseem Akram
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

                                      Order

14/09/2022

The petitioner was convicted in criminal case No. 239/2013

by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kota,

vide judgment dated 21.08.2014, however, the learned trial Judge

allowed benefit of Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act,

1958 to the petitioner and asked the petitioner to execute a bond

of Rs. 2,000/- to maintain peace for a period of one year and not

to repeat the offence and to appear whenever the petitioner is

required to appear.

It has been informed that petitioner has complied with the

aforesaid direction of execution of bond.

Grievance of the petitioner is that the learned trial Judge did

not mention the requirement of Section 12 of The Probation of

Offenders Act.

The provision reads as follows:-

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-6782/2022]

12 "Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law:

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence."

Petitioner raised his grievance before the lower appellate

court in criminal case No. 212/2022 which was dismissed as

barred by limitation.

On bare perusal of the provision of Section 12 above, it is

evident that the statute itself makes clear that the person dealt

with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act shall

not suffer any disqualification. There is no need for any judicial

order at any level regarding provisions of Section 12. The

provision is only required to be shown to the authority who is

bent upon to treat the petitioner's conviction as a disqualification.

Only contrary order of the competent authority would be

challengable before the competent court.

With the aforesaid observations, instant petition stands

disposed off.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

ashu /4

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)