The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nature of the offence, its impact on public health and society, and the principles of deterrence, reform, and proportionality in sentencing to determine the benefit of Section 360 of CrPC.

G.S. Ahluwalia, J.

This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the judgment dated 19.02.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Criminal Revision No.136/2013 by which the judgment passed by JMFC, Shivpuri in Criminal Case No.1984/2011 has been upheld.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this petition are that on 10.12.2011 Shri M.L. Mourya was posted as A.S.I. in Police Station Kotwali, Shivpuri, who received an information from an informer that three persons are playing cards ¼tqvk½ in the playground of Sadar Bazar School. On this information, Shri M.L. Mourya ASI along with H.C. Aslam Khan, Constable Praveen and Constable Arvind went on the spot and found that three accused persons namely Naresh, Pradeep and the applicant Sanjay were playing cards ¼tqvk½ and an amount of Rs.800/- was recovered from Naresh, Rs.1,020/- from Pradeep and Rs.280/- from the applicant and one packet of cards was also seized. The applicant and the other accused persons were arrested. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet.

3. The Trial Court framed charge for offence punishable under Section 13 of Public Gambling Act.

4. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.

5. The Trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties convicted the applicant for offence punishable under Section 13 of Public Gambling Act and imposed a fine of Rs.100/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2013, the applicant filed a criminal revision which too suffered dismissal vide order dated 19.02.2014.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of Revisional Court, the present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed.

7. The counsel for the applicant did not challenge the findings of the Courts below on merits. He merely confined his submissions that the applicant may be extended the benefit of Section 360 of CrPC and he be released on probation of good conduct or after admonition.

8. Per contra, the counsel for the State submitted that under Section 360 (4) of CrPC, the High Court can extend the benefit only while exercising its powers of appeal or revision as an appellate court or as a revisional court. The prayer for extending the benefit of Section 360 CrPC cannot be entertained while exercising powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10. As the counsel for the applicant has not challenged the findings recorded by the courts below, therefore, the reference to the merits of the case are with a view to consider that whether the benefit of Section 360 of CrPC can be extended to the applicant or not.

11. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC (Supp.) 261 has held as under:-

"6. Whether the court while awarding a sentence would take recourse to the principle of deterrence or reform or invoke the doctrine of proportionality, would no doubt depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case.

While doing so, however, the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the accused plays an important role. The offences which affect public health must be dealt with severely. For the said purpose, the courts must notice the object for enacting Article 47 of the Constitution of India.

7. There are certain offences which touch our social fabric. We must remind ourselves that even while introducing the doctrine of plea bargaining in the Code of Criminal Procedure, certain types of offences had been kept out of the purview thereof. While imposing sentences, the said principles should be borne in mind.

8. A sentence is a judgment on conviction of a crime. It is resorted to after a person is convicted of the offence. It is the ultimate goal of any justice delivery system. The Parliament, however, in providing for a hearing on sentence, as would appear from Subsection (2) of Section 235, Sub-section (2) of Section 248, Section 325 as also Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Crimina