Advocates:
['MOHAN SWAROOP', '', 'H C GANESHIA', 'P P']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH

J U D G M E N T

S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PET. NO. 1415/2014

(Mohan Swaroop Vs. State)

DATE OF JUDGMENT :::::

28.1.2016

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

Mr.H.C.Ganeshiya with Mr.ML Sharma, for the

appellant/s.

Mr.RS Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor for State.

This revision petition has been filed against the

impugned judgment & order dated 27.6.2014 passed

by learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Bayana, Distt.

Bharatpur in cr. appeal no. 56/2011.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that an FIR

No.14/1996 for the offences under Secs.279, 337 and

338 IPC. After investigation, police submitted charge-

sheet under the aforesaid offences before the learned

Judl. Magistrate, Weir. The learned trial court framed

charges against the petitioner, to which he denied and

claimed trial. The prosecution examined as manhy as

11 witnesses and got certain documents exhibited.

Statement of the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was

recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial

court vide order dated 7.7.2011 has acquitted the

petitioner from the charge under Sec.338 IPC but held

guilty under Secs.279 and 337 IPC and convicted by

giving benedit of Sec.4 of Probation of Offenders Act.

Against the said judgment dated 7.7.2011, an

appeal was preferred before the court of Addl. Distt. &

Sessions Judge, Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur but same

was dismissed vide order dated 27.6.2014. Hence this

revision petition has been preferred by the accused

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

that without going into the merits of the case, he is not

challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the

court below, but he is only requesting to this court that

FIR was lodged on 12.1.1996 i.e. 20 years ago from

today, he is facing trial since last 20 years, it is his first

offence of the life, he is not previously convict and

already benefit of Sec.4(1) of the Probation of

Offenders Act has been given for a period of one year.

He has already submitted the bail bonds before the

court below as ordered and completed the probation

period peacefully. It is also contended that the

petitioner is not habitual offender, no case is pending

against him, hence benefit of Sec.12 of the Probation

of Offenders Act should also be given to him, so that

this order will not come in the way of petitioner in

future.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has

opposed the same and contended that the impugned

order passed by the trial court is just and proper.

Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned

judgment.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

carefully perused the relevant material on record.

Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case

and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel

for the petitioner that the accused petitioner is not the

habitual offender, no case is made out against him, I

think it just and proper to give benefit of Sec.12 of the

Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner so that this

order will not come in the way of petitioner in future.

In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed

with the following directions:

i) The conviction of the petitioner is maintained.

ii) The accused petitioner is extended the benefit of

Sec.12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, so that the

impugned judgments will not affect his future in any

way.

iii)The accused petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are

canceled and he need not to appear now.

iv)Impugned judgments of the courts below stand

modified, as indicated here-in-above.

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

Sandeep/-72

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being

e-mailed. SANDEEP RAWAT,Sr.P.A.s