1. Conviction under Arms Act — Grant of benefit under Section 4, Probation of Offenders Act — Denial of employment — Application for removal of disqualification under Section 12. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1368
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. Maheshwari, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Amit Singh - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 4860-4861 Of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1134-1135 Of 2023)
Decided On : 28-11-2024
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Ashish Saxena, Adv. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. Ms. Priya Nagar, Adv. Mr. Aakash Sharma, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Ashish Saxena, Adv. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. Ms. Priya Nagar, Adv. Mr. Aakash Sharma, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
The extension of probation benefits removes disqualifications associated with convictions under the Probation of Offenders Act, affirming equitable treatment for convicted individuals.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 3, 99, 402 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3/25, 4/25 - Conviction under IPC charges quashed while affirming the conviction under Arms Act; probation granted under the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of two years. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 12 - Appellants entitled to the benefits granted therein as the conviction under Arms Act does not carry disqualification upon extension of probation benefits. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under IPC and Arms Act; High Court upheld the Arms Act conviction but set aside IPC convictions, granting probation instead of immediate sentencing. (Paras 2-5)
Findings of Court:
The appellant should not suffer disqualification due to the conviction as he was granted probation under the Act. (Paras 10-11)
Issues: The justification of the conviction under Arms Act related to the prior quashed IPC charges and the applicability of probation benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grant of probation inherently includes the removal of disqualifications, providing for equitable treatment based on legislative provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. (Paras 10-12)
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to Arms Act conviction following acquittal for IPC charges — Alternative plea for consequential removal of disqualification under Section 12, Probation of Offenders Act. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Grant of benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act makes the grant of benefit under Section 12 consequential and mandatory. (Para 8 , 10 )
4. A person found guilty and dealt with under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act shall not suffer disqualifications attaching to the conviction under Section 12. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Appeals allowed — Order rejecting benefit under Section 12, Probation of Offenders Act set aside — Benefit extended to appellant and all co-convicts. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
6. Does a conviction under the Arms Act still carry disqualifications if the court grants probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act?
No. Under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, a person found guilty and dealt with under Section 3 or 4 shall not suffer any disqualification attaching to the conviction of an offence under such law. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. Is the benefit of removal of disqualification under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act automatic upon the grant of probation under Section 4?
Yes, the court held that once the benefit of Section 4 is extended to a convict, the grant of the benefit of Section 12 is consequential. (Para 10 )
8. Can a court reject an application for Section 12 benefits on the ground of being functus officio after the main judgment?
The court found the High Court's rejection of the Section 12 application on the ground of being functus officio unjustifiable, as the benefit is consequential to the original order granting probation. (Para 5 , 10 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was made an accused in FIR No. 237 dated 31.07.2003 registered at Bhilwara Police Station, Subhash Nagar, Rajasthan, along with six other accused persons. He was tried for the charges under Sections 3 99, 402 and 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 /25 and 4/25 of the ARMS ACT , 1959 ( ARMS ACT ). The Trial Court convicted him for the charges under Sections 3 99/402 of the IPC and also under Sections 3 /25 of the ARMS ACT and directed him to undergo sentence of two years and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively.
3. In appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction for the charges under Sections 3 99/402 of the IPC while upholding the conviction for the charges under Sections 3 /25 of the ARMS ACT . The relevant portion of the order passed by the High Court is reproduced as under:
“13. Thus, the appeal deserves acceptance in part. The conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 399/402 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of this charge. However, conviction of the respective appellants as recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act are hereby affirmed but while maintaining their conviction as recorded by the trial court, it is directed that instead of sentencing them immediately, they shall be given benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act upon their entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one sound and solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of next two years from today and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The appellant shall also furnish an undertaking to the trial court that they shall not commit any offence during the said period. The seized arms stand confiscated to the State. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.”
4. In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that while upholding the conviction under Sections 3 /25 and 4/25 against the accused persons, the conviction for the charge under Sections 3 99/402 of the IPC was set aside. The High Court was of the view that while maintaining the conviction, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be given upon their entering into a personal bond and other terms and conditions as specified, instead of sentencing them.
5. The appellant got selected for employment after confirmation of conviction by the High Court under Sections 3 /25 of the ARMS ACT . He applied to get benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act as on account of conviction under Sections 3 /25 of the ARMS ACT , he was denied appointment. Therefore, he filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 168 of 2022 asking for the benefit under Section 12 . The High Court rejected the application on the ground that after decision in the criminal case, the Court becomes functus officio and cannot review its own order.
6. In the said facts, learned counsel for the appellant though assailed the findings of the conviction for the charge under Section 3 /25 of the ARMS ACT on the pretext that when the offence under Sections 3 99/402 itself has not been proved, the charges under Section 3 /25 of the ARMS ACT cannot be proved in the facts of this case. In the alternative, it is urged by him that the High Court though granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, but denied the consequential benefit of Section 12 thereof. Therefore, in case the benefit of Section 12 is extended, he will not press this appeal so far as the finding of conviction is concerned.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State is not in a position to dispute the fact that the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act was extended to appellant while convicting him along with other co-accused per
