IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that first-time offenders may be granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, emphasizing rehabilitation over incarceration.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present criminal revision preferred under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2010, Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the said court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 20.09.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag in Criminal Case No. 97 of 2010, State Vs. Prem Singh.

3. In a nut-shell, case of the prosecution is that the then Secretary, Shadhan Sahkari Samiti, Ratura, District Rudraprayag, the revisionist being posted in the aforesaid capacity by making interpolation in records has embezzled an amount of Rs.47,643.16/-. In respect of the aforesaid embezzlement and criminal breach of trust, the Member Secretary of the Committee directed to lodge an FIR against the revisionist. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against the revisionist under Sections 408, 467 and 468 IPC and on completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist under the aforesaid sections before the concerned court.

4. The Court took cognizance; summoned the accused in the court and in compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., copies of prosecution documents were provided to him; thereafter a charge against the revisionist was framed under Sections 408, 467 and 468 IPC, which the revisionist-accused denied and claimed to be tried.

5. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as five witnesses namely PW1- Suresh Ram Arya, PW2-H.C. Buddhi Singh Panwar, PW3- Surendra Singh Bhandari, PW4-Narendra Singh Bhandari and PW5-Insp. R.P. Singh.

6. During course of examination-in-chief, PW1-Suresh Ram Arya, passed-away due to which, no cross-examination was done from this witness. Accordingly the evidence of that witness was directed not to be read in evidence. Thereafter the statement of revisionist-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he stated that witnesses have deposed falsely against him, however he denied to lead any evidence in his defence. The trial court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents available on record, proceeded to convict the accused for the offence under Section 408 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- vide judgment and order dated 20.09.2010. Against the said judgment dated 20.09.2010, the appeal was carried before the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag, which was also dismissed by the judgment and order dated 27.06.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag. Assailing both the judgments present revision has been preferred before this Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the entire documents available on record.

8. Learned Senior Advocate for the revisionist having argued extensively finally submitted before this Court that the judgment and order passed by the trial court as also the appellate court are based on the evidence produced before those Courts and if this Court does not convince on the argument advanced by him, he also prayed that the revisionist may be extended, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’).

9. To this submission learned State counsel has no serious objection and he also admitted that the revisionist can be extended the benefit of first offenders act.

10. Since the revisionist at the time of offence was 40 years of age (as he was aged about 53 years in 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 06.07.2010) and now he is about 67 years of age, which was his first offence. He belongs to the poor strata of family and also has liability of his children. It was also argued that he is suffering from various ailments.

11. Learned State counsel also stated before this Court