IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that good conduct and lack of criminal history can justify probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

The revisionist–accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”). He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 225 IPC. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 186 IPC, and, he was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 506 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. An Appeal (Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2015) was filed against the judgment dated 06.05.2015, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.1072 of 2009. The said appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 07.01.2020, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the revisionist accused assaulted the Excise Inspector and other officers on 23.05.2009 when they were going with Indrapreet Singh, who was arrested under the provisions of the Excise Act. Revisionist along with his other associates rescued Indrapreet Singh from their custody and fled from the spot.

4. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed.

5. Charges were framed. The revisionist-accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. Prosecution examined five witnesses.

7. Statements of the revisionist-accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. He denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution.

8. Heard Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

9. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate, contended that the present matter is pending since 2009. Revisionist has no criminal history. Therefore, he has requested to alter the sentence and grant the benefit of probation to the revisionist under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

10. Mr. Akshay Latwal, Brief Holder appearing for the State, submitted that as per the report dated 20.12.2023 of the District Probation Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, the conduct and behavior of the revisionist are good.

11. The present matter is pending since 2009. There is nothing on record to indicate that the revisionist is engaged in any criminal activities.

12. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems appropriate that the sentence, passed against the revisionist, should be altered and the benefit of probation should be granted to him.

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

14. Resultantly, the revisionist – accused Rajneet Singh alias Sonu be released on probation on good conduct for a period of six months, 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. In the meantime, he is directed to keep the peace and be of good behavior. He is further directed to appear before the District Probation Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, within a week from today.

15. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment to the District Probation Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, for necessary action.

16. The provision of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 will apply in the present matter.

17. Present Criminal Revision (No.25 of 2020) stands disposed of accordingly.