Disposed

Tej Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC25 Jan 2018CRLR/324/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court clarified that a petitioner granted benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is entitled to the non-disqualification benefits under Section 12, even if the appeal was dismissed for delay.

What did the court decide?

The S.B. Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of; the petitioner's apprehension regarding non-entitlement to Section 12 benefits is dismissed.

Tej Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

(1 of 2)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 324/2017

¶4

Tej Singh S/o Shri Kanwar Singh B/c Meena, R/o Bheekhahedi, Police Station Raini, District Alwar, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. K.L. Meena

¶10

For Respondent : Mr. Ram Ratan Gurjar, P.P.

¶11

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Order

¶13

25/01/2018

¶14

Defects pointed by the office are waived.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Court had erred in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Although, benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was granted to the petitioner but benefit under Section 12 of the Act was not extended to the petitioner by the trial court. Dispute between the parties was a matrimonial one. However, parties had amaicably settled their dispute, during trial. Wife of the petitioner is presently residing with him. Now, the petitioner has applied for a Government job and conviction of the petitioner might come in his way as benefit of Section 12 of the Act was not extended to him.

¶16

(2 of 2 )

¶17

In the present case, petitioner was convicted and sentenced qua offence under Section 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code 1860 vide judgment dated 13.04.2010 and was

¶18

granted benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act in view of compromise effected between the parties. Petitioner preferred an appeal on 7.11.2016. Since, the appeal had been filed after a long dealy, learned Appellate Court rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶19

As per Section 12 of the Act, a person who is found guilty of an offence and is extended the benefit of probation under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.

¶20

Since, the petitioner was granted benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act, he is entitled to the benefit under Section 12 of the Act. Conviction of the petitioner as ordered by the trial court cannot be treated as a disqualification. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner that he would not get benefit of Section 12 of the Act is misconceived.

¶21

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(SABINA)J.

¶23

Mohita/17

Tej Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goverdhan @ Gorkhiya and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajeev Modi Vs Union of India

Ramesingh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Narendra@Naru Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Raashid Ali @ Raashid Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Brajpal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp