The court emphasized the rehabilitative nature of probation, allowing it for the petitioner due to her age, personal circumstances, and conduct during trial, despite the conviction for fraud.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420 and 120B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Revision petition against conviction under fraud-related offenses - Court held that mitigating factors such as the petitioner's age, her loss of husband, and previous conduct warranted the granting of probation, thus modifying the sentence from imprisonment to probation. (Paras 3, 14, 17)

(B) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Sections 3 and 4 - Criteria for granting probation involves assessing the nature of the offence and the conduct of the offender during the trial. The court emphasized the rehabilitative purpose of probation in its decision. (Paras 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, along with her now-deceased husband, was convicted for defrauding complainants in a property transaction by falsely representing a minor as an adult, resulting in the complainants losing money and property rights.

Findings of Court:
The court recognized the significance of the petitioner's age and her personal circumstances in deciding to grant probation instead of imprisonment.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner should receive probation under the Probation of Offenders Act after being convicted of fraud.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the petitioner's personal loss and age, combined with her conduct during the trial, justified a probationary sentence as it aligned with the rehabilitative intent of the laws governing probation.

Result: Petition granted; sentence modified to probation.

Table of Content
1. overview of case and legal background. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of conviction and sentencing. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments presented regarding probation. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's analysis on probation and conduct. (Para 8 , 10 , 14)
5. application of probation of offenders act. (Para 12 , 17)
6. final decision and directive on probation. (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. 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 t