2010 Supreme(Raj) 1060
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.
Shiv Ram Meena - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision petition No. 609 of 2009.
Decided On : 4-01-2010
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mukesh Vyas, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K.K. Rawat, Advocate.
Headnote:Railways Properties (Unlawful possession) Act, 1966 – S. 3 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – S. 3 and 12 Impugned order of conviction under – S. 3 of 1966 Act – A revision petition was filed challenging an order of conviction of the accused for a offence under – S. 3 of the Act of 1966 – It is held that when a railway servant is convicted for an trifle offence under – S. 3 of the Act of 1966, the benefit of – S. 3 of the Act of 1958 can be extended to the servant so that the conviction does not result in any disqualification for continuation in service – Therefore, petitioner is released under the parole while maintaining the conviction order – Hence, the petition is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the) petitioner that the petitioner is a railway servant working as Helper Grade-2 at North West Railway Workshop, Jodhpur. In trifle matter he has been convicted by learned Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate, railway, Bikaner for four months simple imprisonment. In appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge No, I confirmed the sentence by dismissing the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge against the accused person is that he was carrying four pieces of Axel box cover plate on 16.03.2002 when he was caught by Anil Kumar S.I. Of RPF Railway, Bikaner.
3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner because of this trifle nature is sentence is maintained the petitioner will be out of job therefore, he should be granted benefit under probation of Offenders Act.
4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the nature of the case, it is proper and justiciable that petitioner be released under probation of offenders Act so that he may not be deprived of the job.
5. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction under Sec. 3 of R.P. (U.P.) Act, instead of sentencing four months imprisonment which he has already undergone, he be released under Sec. 3 of the probation of way by virtue of Sec. 12 of probation of Offenders Act so far as his service is concerned.Writ Petition Dismissed.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
