The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in granting the benefit of probation to the accused-appellant.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to allow this criminal appeal and the impugned judgment and order dated 14.06.2017 passed by learned Special Judge, Electricity Act Cases, Jalore, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Sections 138 of the Act of 2003, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appellant may kindly be acquitted for the said offence."

2. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 2013 and the present appeal has been pending since 2017.

3. Vide impugned judgment dated 14.06.2017, the learned Special Judge, Electricity Act Cases, Jalore in Session Case No.5/2013 convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 138 of Electricity Act and sentenced him to undergo one year imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, 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.9,35,777/-, which is noted in the impugned judgment. Learned counsel further submits that the accused-appellant has also deposited the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- 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 23.06.2017 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application (Suspension of Sentence) No. 628/2017, 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. Learned counsel for the Electricity Department, Mr. Vikram Choudhary fairly submits that the issue in the present case is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Appeal No . 896/2017, wherein keeping into consideration the cases of Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC, Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U