The court applied the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to release the first-time offender on probation, considering the nature of the offence and the character of the offender.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist 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 14.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in Criminal Case No.571 of 2018, "State of Uttarakhand Vs. Ganesh Rekhari" whereby the trial Court convicted the revisionist under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year's SI with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and also convicted him under Section 506 IPC and sentenced three months' SI as well as order dated 17.02.2021 passed by learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2019, "Ganesh Dutt Rekhari Vs. State of Uttarakhand" affirming the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the trial Court.

2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that on 17.01.2018 information was submitted by the informant PW2 with Police Station Bhowali about the offence committed by the revisionist regarding outraging her modesty. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged with Police Station Bhowali.

3. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. charges under Section 354 and 506 IPC were framed. The charge was read over and explained to the revisionist. The revisionist pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses, namely, PW1 Constable Kian, PW2 Prosecutrix, PW3 Urbadutt Tiwari, PW4 Dharampal Singh and PW5 Sub Inspector Rewati Pant.

5. Thereafter, the statement of the revisionist was recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. who denied the allegations made against him. However, in defence the accused examined Manoj Rekhari as DW-1.

6. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court came to this conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and vide the judgment, under challenge, has convicted and sentenced the accused, as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved by it, the revisionist preferred an appeal No.146 of 2019, "Ganesh Dutt Rekhari Vs. State of Uttarakhand" before the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nainital.

7. The learned appellate court after hearing both the parties, came to this conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court is based on facts and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the lower Court's order. Aggrieved by it, the present revision is preferred.

8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence available on the record.

9. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for the revisionist fairly submits that the conviction of the revisionist, as recorded by the Court below under Section 354 and 506 of IPC is perfectly justified as per the evidence recorded before the trial court and she also does not want to lay any challenge on the same; she only confined her prayer to the extent that the revisionist may be extended the benefit of being the first-offender, as per the evidence, it was simply a case of catching the hand; there is no allegation regarding outraging modesty of the prosecutrix; the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused one year's SI under Section 354 IPC while three months' SI under Section 506 IPC. The revisionist has already served two months; the revisionist is the only bread earner of the family and he may be released on probation by giving him benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is also argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that there is no criminal history against him.

10. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, learned Brief Holder 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.

11. In t