SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.P.S. Sandhu, J.
Ranjit Paul-Petitioner/Convict
versus
The State of Punjab-Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1817 of 1982
Decided on 9-2-1984

Advocates:
G. S. Dhillon Advocate-For the petitioner.
H. S. Manu, Advocate for A.G. Pb.-For the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where a convict is given benefit of S.4 of Probation of offender Act,1958 than section 12 of the said Act absolves the offender of all the disqualification which are attached to a conviction.

Headnote:Railway Property (Unlawful Possession act, 1966 -Section 8 (a)-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 401-Probation of Offenders Act, 1958-Sections 4, 12-Petitioner convicted u/s 3 (a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act but given benefit of probation in sentence- Whether the fear of counsel for petitioner that this conviction may not haunt the petitioner with evil consequences true? (No) (Para 3)

       

JUDGMENT

K. P. S. Sandhu, J.-The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default R. I. for six months by the learned Special Rail-Nay Magistrate, Jullundur vide his order dated 2. 6. 1981. The appeal was carried to the Court of Session where it substantially failed in as much as that the sentence of imprisonment was set aside and the petitioner was given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and it was directed that the petitioner shall furnish personal bond with one surety of the amount of Rs. 2000/for a period of one year for keeping peace and of good behavior. He was further directed to pay Rs. 500/- towards the costs of litigation: The petitioner bas come up in revision to this Court.

2. I have gone through the judgment and the evidence in the case Nothing serious has been brought out to show any irregularity or illegality in the orders of the Courts below. I do not find any material to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts. How ever, Mr. G.s. Dhillon, learned counsel for the petitioner has his fears that this conviction may not haunt the petitioner with evil consequences.

3. Since the petitioner has been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act,1958 section 12 of the aforesaid Act absolves the offender of all the disqualifications which are attached to a conviction. Section 12 of the Act reads as under:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction of an offence under such law:

Section 12 of the aforesaid Act absolves the off under of all the disqualifications which are attached to a conviction. Section 12 of the Act reads as under :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached 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."

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the fears of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not well founded. This revision, thus, stands disposed of.

Revision dismissed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top