ORDER

1. This revision has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 25.1.2023 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior, in Criminal Appeal No.30/2022 affirming the judgment dated 4.4.2022 passed by the JMFC, Dabra, in Criminal Case No.1375/2015 convicting petitioner under sections 354 and 323 (on five counts) of IPC and sentencing him to suffer 1 year RI with fine of Rs.500/- and TRC with fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count respectively.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that on 4.10.2015 complainant had gone to bring milk, his mother and sister had gone to take water and his wife was alone in the house. Suddenly on hearing cry of his wife, his mother and sister rushed to the house, then his wife told them that petitioner Jitendra was molesting her, at that juncture, petitioner Jitendra carrying Danda, his father iron rod, mother Mamta Danda and his sister Jyoti armed with Baka like object came there and assaulted the complainant, his father, mother and brother Dharmendra, Petitioner Jitendra was harassing her wife for long time. FIR was lodged. Matter was investigated. Petitioner and co-accused were arrested. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Trial was conducted. After trial, petitioner has been convicted as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. On the same day one NCR has been filed against the complainant party. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Complainant Sonu in para 3 of his cross-examination has admitted that before the incident petitioner Jitendra eloped with his wife. Thereafter he has stated that by persuading he took away her. It has been further stated by this witness that his wife was recovered after two days and he does not know how long their love affair is going on, whereas Victim (PW-2) in cross-examination para 5 has stated that on the date of incident she has seen petitioner Jitendra for the first time and she does not know him beforehand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of such facts, since the petitioner has no criminal past, benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 be extended to him. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on para 13 of the decision of the apex Court in the case of Lakhvir Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others decided on 19.1.2021 in Criminal Appeal Nos.47-48 of 2021 which reads as under :

" 13. Even though, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act') prescribes a minimumsentence ofimprisonment for not less than 1 year, an exception was carved out keeping in mind the application ofthe Act. In Ishar Das (supra), this Court noted that if the object of the legislature was that the Act does not apply to all cases where a minimumsentence ofimprisonment is prescribed, there was no reason to specifically provide an exception for section 5(2) of the PC Act. The fact that Section 18 of the Act does not include any other such offences where a mandatory minimum sentence has been prescribed suggests that the Act may be invoked in such other offences. A more nuanced interpretation on this aspect was given in CCE vs. Bahubali, (1979) 2 SCC 279. It was opined that the Act may not apply in cases where a specific law enacted after 1958 prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, and the law contains a non-obstante clause. Thus, the benefits ofthe Act did not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted after the Act. It is in this context, it was observed in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das (Supra) that the Court cannot award a sentence less than the mandatory sentence prescribed by the statute. We are ofthe