Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2187

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Mohammad Israr – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1266/2021
Decided On : 22-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
D.S. Gharsana, Advocate, for the Appellant
S.S. Rajpurohit, PP and Pradeep Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondents

The court's decision was influenced by the absence of criminal antecedents of the accused-appellant and the legislative intent of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Headnote:
Electricity Act - Benefit under Probation of Offenders Act - Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Fact of the Case:

The accused-appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to undergo 02 year S.I. along with a fine of Rs. 10,000. The appellant sought benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Finding of the Court:

The court observed that the accused-appellant had no criminal antecedents and was entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The court interfered with the sentence part of the judgment and directed the appellant to be released on probation, upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.
Issues: Conviction under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and entitlement to benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the legislative intent of the Act and previous decisions, deeming it appropriate to extend the benefit of the Act to the accused-appellant based on the absence of criminal antecedents.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the conviction but interfering with the sentence part of the judgment, and directing the appellant to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - 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 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 criminal appeal may kindly be allowed and judgment and conviction dated 12.11.2021 passed by the learned special judge (Electricity Theft Cases) Additional Session Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar, District Srigangangar in Session Case and C.I.S. No. 41/2009 (9928/2014) (State of Rajasthan v. Mohammad Israr), may kindly be set aside and appellant may be set at liberty;"

3. Vide impugned judgment dated 12.11.2021 the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act Cases Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1 Sriganganagar) in Criminal Case No. 41/2009 (CIS No. 9928/2014 convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced him to undergo 02 year S.I., along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- default in payment of which he was to further undergo one months' S.I.;

4. 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 20.12.2021 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) Application No. 872/2021, and thus, he is on bail.

5. 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 behavior: 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)..."

6. 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 is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

8. In Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

"The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society.

In recalcitrant cases, punishment has to be deterrent so that others similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of crime. But the novice who strays into the path of crime ought, in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document