HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 648 / 2017

State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Subhash Chandra Son of Hasraj, Resident of Hanumangarh

Junction, District Hanumangarh.

2. M/s Subhash Medical Store, Govt. Hospital, Opp. Hanumangarh

Junction through Owner Subhash.

3. Navneet Rai Son of Sita Ram Bhagidar, M/s R.K. & Co., 120

Goal Bazar, Sri Ganganagar, Resident of House No. 304, Vinoba

Basti, Sri Ganganagar.

4. Satpal Son of Kishori Lal Bhagidar, M/s R.K. & Co., 120 Goal

Bazar, Sri Ganganagar, Resident of House No. 304, Vinoba Basti,

Sri Ganganagar.

5. Rajendra Pal Son of Kishori Lal Bhagidar, M/s R.K. & Co., 120

Goal Bazar, Sri Ganganagar, Resident of House No. 304, Vinoba

Basti, Sri Ganganagar.

6. Pawan Kumar Goyal Son of Om Prakash Goyal, Partner, M/s

R.K. & Co., 120 Goal Bazar, Sri Ganganagar, Resident of House No.

304, Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar.

7. Smt. Krishna Goyal Wife of Rajkumar Goyal, Partner, M/s R.K. &

Co., 120 Goal Bazar, Sri Ganganagar, Resident of House No. 304,

Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar.

8. M/s R.K. & Co., 120 Goal Bazar, Sri Ganganagar Through Their

Partners 3,4,5,6 and 7.

(2 of 5)

[CRLR-648/2017]

9. M/s R.P. & Kamodiya @ Roopal Wife of Kaitan Pareek, Resident

of Baniya, A-7 Gulabvatika Society, Badohtra (Gujarat).

----Respondents

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K.Vyas, G.A.

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

31/07/2017

The instant revision has been preferred by the State of

Rajasthan for assailing the legality and validity of the order dated

16.12.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Hanumangarh in Cr. Appeal No.

8/2015 whereby the learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment

dated 31.12.2014 passed by the learned C.J.M., Hanumangarh in

Cr. Regular Case No. 1/2011 (20/91) holding the respondents

guilty of the offence under Section 27-D of the Drugs and

Cosmetics Act and extending them the benefit of probation under

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing bail

and bonds to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of three

years. Further, prosecution cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on

each of the accused.

I have heard the arguments advanced by learned

Government Advocate and have perused the material on record.

The respondents were facing trial for the above offence since the

year 1991. They bonafide pleaded guilty before the trial court

which accepted their plea and after holding the respondents guilty

of the charge under Section 27(D) of the Drugs and Cosmetics

(3 of 5)

[CRLR-648/2017]

Act, extended the benefit of probation to them. The Appellate

Court took note of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case

of Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2017 SC-660

and upheld the order passed by the trial court. In the said

judgment, after appreciating the earlier precedents including the

three Judge bench decision in the case of Superintendent, Central

Excise, Bangalore Vs. Bahubali reported in AIR 1979 SC-1271

regarding the power of Court to grant probation in offences where

minimum sentence is prescribed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held

that where there is a statute which bars the exercise of judicial

discretion in the matter of award of sentence, the Probation of

Offenders Act will have no application. In the case of

Bahubali(supra) it was held that as Rule 126-P(2)(ii) of the DI

Rules manifestly bars the exercise of judicial di