The court upheld the conviction under Section 323 IPC but granted probation based on the accused's lack of prior criminal history and retirement status, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.

Judgment :

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner against the order dated 25.01.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Cr. Appeal No.60/2007 whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal filed against judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushalgarh, District Banswara, dated 29.06.2007 passed in Cr. Regular Case No.353/2000 and while affirming the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 323 IPC , set aside the sentence and instead gave him benefit of probation under Section 4/12 of Probation of Offenders Act.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that complainant Salaudeen submitted a written report at Police Station Kushalgarh to the effect that on 15.05.1999, Court of Bagidaura sent him in judicial custody at Sub-Jail Kushalgarh.

3. After two days, on the order of release, the Jailer demanded Rs.5,000/- and on not paying the same, he gave beating to the complainant. On the said report, Police registered a case against the accused-petitioner and started investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges for offences under Sections 327, 330 IPC . The accused petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of the accused petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 29.06.2007 while acquitting the accused-petitioner from offences under Sections 327, 330 IPC , convicted and sentenced him for offence under Section 323 IPC .

7. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 25.01.2012. The learned appellate court while maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 323 IPC , set aside his sentence as awarded by the trial court and instead gave him benefit of probation under Section 4/12 of the Act. Hence, this revision petition.

8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of convictions given by the courts below, but since the occurrence is related to the year 1999 and the petitioner was a government service and now he has been retired from services, therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may be given benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the revision and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the learned courts below, the accused-petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments as well as record of the case.

11. Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act is reproduced as under :

“12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law:

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.”

12. This Court observes that there is no material on record that the accused-petitioner has any criminal antecedents. Thus, this Court, after taking into due consideration the legislative intent of the Act as well as the facts that the petitioner was a government employee and now has been retired from service and considering his age and the fact that he has been convicted only for offence under Section 323 IPC