Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2288

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Rana Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 282/2016
Decided On : 16-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
N.A. Rajpurohit, Advocate., for the Appellant
Javed Gauri, PP and Vikram Choudhary, Advocate., for the Respondents

The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability and benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the case of the accused-appellant convicted under Section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Headnote:
Electricity Act - Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act - Section 138 of Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - 4, 138 of Electricity Act, 2003 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the applicability of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in the case of the accused-appellant convicted under Section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The court referred to various legal provisions and interpretations from Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas, Brij Lal v. State of Rajasthan, Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P., Lakhvir Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. to establish the legislative intent and the benefit of the Act for the accused-appellant. The court ultimately allowed the appeal and extended the benefit of the Act to the accused-appellant, maintaining the conviction but directing release on probation.
Fact of the Case:

The accused-appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to undergo one year S.I. along with a fine. The appellant appealed for acquittal and benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused-appellant was entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and extended the benefit to the accused-appellant, maintaining the conviction but directing release on probation.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the case of the accused-appellant convicted under Section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the legislative intent and various legal interpretations to establish the benefit of the Act for the accused-appellant, ultimately allowing the appeal and extending the benefit of the Act to the accused-appellant.
Final Decision: The present appeal is partly allowed, maintaining the conviction but directing release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for the accused-appellant.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2016 passed by Special Judge, Electricity Offence, Pali in Sessions Case No. 42/2013 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the present appellant may kindly be acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Any other appropriate order or relief may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 2012 and the present appeal has been pending since 2016.

3. Vide impugned judgment dated 16.03.2016 the learned Special Judge, Electricity Offence, Pali in Sessions Case No. 42/2013 convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 138 of Electricity Act and sentenced him to undergo one year S.I., along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, default in payment of which he was ordered to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the accused-appellant has deposited the civil liability of Rs. 10345/-, which is noted in the impugned judgment. Learned counsel further submits that the accused-appellant has also deposited the fine amount of Rs. 5000/- before the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur. The receipt of which has been furnished by learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the same is taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the offence is akin to a civil offence and the accused-appellant does not have any criminal antecedents to his discredit.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant was suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide the order dated 06.04.2016 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application (Suspension of Sentence) No. 400/2016, and thus, he is on bail.

7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-appellant 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) .... "

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the learned court below, the accused-appellant