ORDER :

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.

S.B. CRLR No.124/2001

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

“It is, therefore respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be accepted and Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, dated 13.02.2001 be quashed and set aside and the accused petitioner be acquitted of the offences under Section 409 IPC. Alternatively, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded in this case may kindly be ordered to run concurrently with the sentence passed in Criminal Appeal No.10/97 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, vide judgment and order dated 13.02.2001.”

2. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1979 and the present revision petition has been pending since 2001.

3. Vide impugned judgment dated 05.11.1992 the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Case No.335/92 convicted revisionist-petitioner for the offence under Section 409 IPC sentenced to undergo three years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.6000/- in default of payment of which he was further ordered to undergo six months’ additional imprisonment.

4. Vide impugned judgment dated 13.02.2001 in Criminal Appeal No.10/97 the sentence awarded to petitioner was reduced to one year’s R.I. but the sentence of fine and imprisonment in default were maintained.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the offence under Section 409 IPC are punishable with a maximum imprisonment up to ten years, therefore, the petitioner may be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the petitioner do not have any criminal antecedents to his discredit.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the sentence awarded to the petitioner was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide the order dated 08.03.2001, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22/2001 and thus, he is on bail.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner however, makes a limited prayer that the petitioner may be granted benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

“4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.—

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life 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 to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.

(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.

(3)…

(4)…

(5)... ”

9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the revision petition and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaki