The Court applied the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to allow the release of the revisionist on probation despite upholding the conviction under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionists u/s 397/ 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.06.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Case No.516 of 2000, State Vs. Bhajan Singh @ Bhajnu, thereby, convicting the revisionist under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo one year's R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default of fine, he was directed to undergo three months' additional S.I. The revisionist has also challenged the judgment dated 18.4.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2008, Bhajan Singh v. State, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist was dismissed.

2. Fact, to the limited extent necessary, are that revisionist Bhajan Singh @ Bhajnu was ordered by the Executive Authority, Tehri to remain out of the boundaries of District Tehri Garhwal for a period of six months, however before expiry of six months' period, the revisionist was found at Petrol Pump Tehri on 18.11.1999 at 7 PM. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. The prosecution produced PW1 Constable Jagdish, PW2 Gyan Lal, PW3 Sohan Singh Patwal, PW4 Constable Kunwar Singh and PW5 S.I. Jeet Pal Singh Raghav.

3. After the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist, as above. The appeal preferred there-against was also dismissed. Hence the present revision has been filed assailing both the judgments passed by the Courts below.

4. This Court has gone through the statements of witnesses, namely, PW1 Constable Jagdish, PW2 Gyan Lal, PW3 Sohan Singh Patwal, PW4 Constable Kunwar Singh and PW5 S.I. Jeet Pal Singh Raghav. The testimony of these witnesses is not only natural but trustworthy. They have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing has come out in their evidence, which may create any reasonable doubt in their testimony. In the above circumstances, this Court came to the conclusion that the Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the revisionist.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist fairly argued that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is just and proper there is no objection to it; but keeping in mind the facts that the matter relates to the year 1999; the revisionist did not commit any offence; he reached at the Petrol Pump, New Tehri on 18.11.1999 for an urgent work; he the only bread earner of his family; he is around 55 years old and infirm; and, therefore, he may be extended the benefit of First Offender Act

6. Mr. A.K. Sah, learned A.G.A appearing for the State, admits that he has not received any report about the criminal antecedents of the revisionist, and admitted that the revisionist is the first-time offender.

7. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB Police Vs. Sanjay Binjola",2001 SCC(Cri) 897, in paragraph no.7, has held as under:

"7. Probation of Offenders Act has been enacted in view of the increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offenders as a useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to deleterious effect of jail life. The Act empowers the Court to release on probation, in all suitable cases, an offender found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for the description mentioned in Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act."

8. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read as under:

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

1. When any person is found guilty of having commi