Point of Law: Probation of Offenders Act empower courts to release petitioner on good conduct, and nature of offence and conduct of petitioner needs to be taking into consideration while granting probation.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 09.01.2018 and order on sentence dated 19.01.2018 passed in the case titled “Seema Rani v. The State” by learned District & Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi (“Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 8127/2016 arising out of FIR No. 261/2010, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri for the offences punishable under Section 420/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered pursuant to the directions of learned ACMM, South District, Patiala House Courts on the complaint of one Sh. Ajab Singh and Smt. Praveen. The complaint was to the effect that complainants had purchased the property no. B-32, Sultanpur admeasuring 100 square yards in Khasra No. 563 Min from accused persons namely Sh. Ramesh Kumar (now deceased), Smt. Seema Rani and Sh. Ravi Kukreja and an agreement to sell dated 11.07.2002 was entered into with the said accused persons for total sale consideration of Rs. 4 lacs out of which sum of Rs.1,70,000/- was paid to Sh. Ravi Kukreja and the balance was to be paid by the complainants within the next 03 months. Despite several requests made to the accused persons, neither the physical possession nor the NOC or any other certificate was provided to the complainants. A suit for specific performance of contract dated 11.07.2002 was then by the complainant, and during the course of the proceedings in the civil cases, it was ultimately revealed by accused Ravi Kukreja that he was a minor at the time when the agreement to sell was entered between him and the respondents. For the first time before the concerned Court, he disclosed that he is not Ravi Kukreja but Suneet Kalra and filed school certificate of 10th class for the year 2002 showing his date of birth as 15.01.1985. He further claimed that at the time of the purchase of the property from his parents, the name was wrongly mentioned as Ravi Kukreja while his correct name was Suneet Kalra and that both names Ravi Kumar and Suneet Kalra were of the same person. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons namely Ramesh Kumar, his wife Seema Rani i.e. petitioner, and their son Ravi Kukreja, pursuant to a pre-planned conspiracy, misrepresented the co-accused Ravi Kukreja as major and hence had no capacity to contract and fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver Rs.1,70,000/- towards the purchase of the said property and committed an offence punishable under sections 420/120B IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges under Sections 420/120B IPC were framed against the petitioner and her deceased husband.

3. The learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 28.04.2015 convicted the petitioner and her husband under Sections 420/120B IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs 1000/- each, in default of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks vide order on sentence dated 18.05.2015. No benefit of probation was given to the convicts.

4. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and her husband, however the husband of the petitioner passed away during the pendency of the said appeal. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 09.01.2018 and order on sentence dated 19.01.2018, while holding the conviction under Section 420/120B IPC, reduced the sentence of the petitioner from two years rigorous imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment, though the fine imposed on them was increased to Rs.1,75,000/-, and a further simple imprisonment for six months in case of default of payment of fine. No separate punishment was imposed under Section 120B IPC and the petitioner was granted benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C.

5. During the course of arguments, learn