IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that probation can be granted under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for offenders with no prior criminal history and good conduct, even in cases involving wildlife protection violations.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

On 08.10.2005, the skin of Guldar was recovered from the house of the revisionist. He was arrested. The recovered skin was sealed and a fard was prepared. A complaint was filed by the respondent no.2 before the Trial Court. A charge under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (in short, “Act, 1972”) was framed. The revisionist pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2. The prosecution examined three witnesses.

3. Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The revisionist denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has held that the prosecution has been successful to prove the charge levelled against the revisionist. The learned Trial Court convicted the revisionist under proviso to Section 51(1) of the said Act, 1972 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with a fine of Rs.50,000/-.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 12.09.2008, passed by learned Trial Court, an Appeal (Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2008) was filed. The said Appeal was modified on 12.08.2010. While modifying the said judgment of the trial court, learned Appellate Court has directed the revisionist to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to deposit a fine of Rs.12,500/-.

6. Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate for the revisionist and Mr. M.K. Chand, learned AGA for the State.

7. Learned Senior Advocate contended that the present matter is pending since 2005. Revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent. Therefore, she has requested to release the revisionist on probation under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

8. Both, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the State submit that the present matter does not fall under sub-section (5) of Section 51 of the Act, 1972.

9. Learned counsel for the State submits that a report of the District Probation Officer, Champawat dated 06.01.2023 has been filed along with a supplementary affidavit dated 09.01.2024. As per the said report the conduct and behavior of the revisionist are good and he is not involved in any unacceptable activities.

10. The present matter is pending since 2005. Revisionist does not have any criminal antecedents. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to release the revisionist on probation.

11. Consequently, without altering the findings of the courts below, the nature of the sentence is being altered.

12. Resultantly, the revisionist is directed to be released on probation on good conduct for a period of one year on his entering into a bond of Rs.30,000/- with one surety of the like amount to appear and receive sentence when he is called during such period and in the meantime he is directed to keep the peace and be of good behavior.

13. Revisionist is further directed to appear before the District Probation Officer, Champawat within a period of fifteen days from today.

14. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment to the District Probation Officer, Champawat for necessary action.

15. The present Revision is disposed of accordingly.