Partly allowed

Bhanwar Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC14 Nov 2022CRLR/715/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Co-ordinate Bench allowed a criminal revision petition seeking probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The appellant had been convicted for an IPC offence. The Court held the petitioner eligible despite the pending nature of the appeal due to lack of antecedents and granted probation on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on probation under Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 via personal bond Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each for two years.

Bhanwar Lal Vs State — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 715/2005

¶3

Bhanwar Lal S/o. Vasudev Acharya, resident of Acharya Pada, Jaisalmer (Presently Supervisor, Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Jaisalmer).

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Pravin Vyas Devesh Khatri
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Mukhtiyar Khan, PP Prithvi RajSingh Balot

¶8

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶9

Order

¶10

14/11/2022

¶11

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1986 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 2005.

¶12

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 01.08.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Criminal Appeal No.10/2003, whereby the judgment dated 28.03.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Criminal Case No.162/1997 convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Section 408 IPC and was sentenced to undergo one years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further 15 days S.I.

¶13

(2 of 6)

¶14

[CRLR-715/2005]

¶15

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner do not have any criminal antecedents to his discredit.

¶16

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon’ble Court way back in 2005 and the petitioner is on bail.

¶17

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-petitioner may be granted benefit under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ ).

¶18

“4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.—

¶19

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises

¶20

(3 of 6)

¶21

[CRLR-715/2005]

¶22

jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.

¶23

(3)… (4)…

¶24

(5)... ”

¶25

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the learned court below, the accused-petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

¶27

In Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶28

“ The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society .

¶29

In recalcitrant cases, punishment has to be deterrent so that others similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of crime. But the novice who strays into the path of crime ought, in the interest of society, be treated as being socially sick. Crimes are not always rooted in criminal tendencies and their origin may lie in psychological factors induced by hunger, want and poverty. The Probation of Offenders act recognises the importance of environmental influence in the commission of crimes and prescribes a remedy whereby the

¶30

(4 of 6)

¶31

[CRLR-715/2005]

¶32

offender can be reformed and rehabilitated in society.”

¶33

8.1 In Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan RLW 2022 Raj 945 , a

¶34

Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:-

¶35

“ Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act nature of offence is one of the major-criteria for determining whether benefit of this provision should be given to the concerned offender or not. His age would be another relevant factor and the circumstance in which the offence was committed may be 3rd important consideration... ”

¶36

8.2 In Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2017) 2 SCC 198 , while reiterating the ratio decidendi laid down in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:

¶37

“… The Court has further opined that though the discretion as been vested in the court to decide when and how the court should form such opinion, yet the provision itself provides sufficient indication that releasing the convicted person on probation of good conduct must appear to the Court to be expedient...”

¶38

8.3 In Lakhvir Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 763 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court of India, with regard to the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 vis-a-vis those Acts wherein a minimum sentence of imprisonment has been prescribed by the legislature, observed as under:-

¶39

"Even though, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act') prescribes a minimum sentence of imprisonment for not less than 1 year, an exception was carved out keeping in mind the application of the 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 minimum sentence of

¶40

(5 of 6)

¶41

[CRLR-715/2005]

¶42

imprisonment 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 v. 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 of the Act did not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted after the Act.5 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 of the view that the corollary to the aforesaid legal decisions ends with a conclusion that the benefit of probation under the said Act is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence Under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code, the offence in the present case. In fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab ILR (1981) P & H 1 are in the same context.”

¶43

This Court observes that there is no material on record that the accused-petitioner has any criminal antecedents. Thus, the accused-petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶44

9.1 Thus, this Court, after taking into due consideration the legislative intent of the Act and the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arvind Mohan (supra), Mohd. Hashim (supra) and in Lakhvir Singh , and by this Hon’ble Court in Brij Lal (supra), deems it appropriate to extend the benefit of the Act to the accused-petitioner.

¶45

(6 of 6)

¶46

[CRLR-715/2005]

¶47

Resultantly, the present petition is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the present accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 408 of IPC, as recorded by the learned court below in the impugned judgment, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgment and directs that the petitioner shall be released on probation, under Section 4 of the Act, upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/and two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court with a further undertaking that he shall maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of two years and shall not repeat the offence. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶48

All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

¶49

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶50

160-Sanjay/-

Bhanwar Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Fuli and Ors. Vs Shrawan and Ors.

Amba Lal Vs Devendra

Smt.Kailash Kanwar and Anr. Vs Sewa Ram and Ors.

Rajesh Giri Vs State

Megha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti