ORDER :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs :-

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this revision petition may kindly be accepted and allowed. The judgment dated 18.04.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur in criminal appeal No.23/99 against the judgment dated 14.10.1999 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur in criminal regular case No.679/99 may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

3. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1996 and the present revision petition has been pending since 2000.

4. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, Udaipur whereby the judgment dated 14.10.1999 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.1 Udaipur in Criminal Original Case No.679/99 convicting the revisionist-petitioner under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo 06 months R.I. & 02 years R.I. respectively was upheld. The same was modified vide order dated 18.04.2000 to the extent that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo 06 months S.I. & 01 year S.I. respectively.

5. The offences under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC are punishable with an imprisonment for up to six months & up to two years respectively, therefore, benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (while considering Section 6) be granted to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that at the time of occurrence of the alleged incident, the revisionist-petitioner was 21 years of age and that he does not have any criminal antecedents to his discredit.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide the order dated 24.05.2000, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No.52/2000 and thus, he is on bail.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner however, makes a limited prayer that the revisionist-petitioner may be granted benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Learned counsel also referred to Section 6 of the Act. Sections 3 & 6 of the Act read as under:-

“3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.—

When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4, release him after due admonition.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4.”

“6. Restrictions on imprisonment of offenders under twenty-one years of age.—

(1) When any person under twenty-one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life), the court by which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstanc