Madhya Pradesh High Court
Badam Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 November, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 2 nd OF NOVEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3524 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
BADAM SINGH S/O SHRI RAMDAYAL DEVGIR, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EMPLOYEE, R/O:
DUPADA ROAD, SHAJAPUR, LALGHATI, DIST.
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI AVINASH KUMAR KHARE - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION SHAJAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AMIT RAWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Applicant has preferred revision under Section 397/ 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 18.08.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.32/2022 by the Sessions Judge, Shajapur, upholding the conviction of applicant under Section 324 of IPC and on the basis of amicable settlement between both the parties sentenced is reduced from six months R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- to only fine of Rs.4000/- with usual default stipulation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.05.2017, at about 07:00 PM, when the complainant Ramesh reached the garden/ Bageecha of Bunty, at that Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 04-11-2023 13:00:01 2 time applicant Badam came there and demanded his money back. When the complainant denied for the same, then applicant/ accused abused him in filthy language and attacked on the sister of complainant Tejubai by means of knife, due to which she sustained injuries on her both wrists. When the wife of complainant came therefore for intervention, accused also beaten her by using kick and fist. After that, complainant lodged an FIR at P.S. Shajapur. MLC of both the victim persons were conducted by Dr. N.K. Gupta (PW-3). During the investigation, knife has been recovered from the possession of applicant.
3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant / accused. The learned trial Court framed the charges under Section 294, 323, 324 and 506-B of IPC. The applicant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court convicted the applicant/ accused for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with usual default stipulation.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the pendency of appeal, matter has been amicably settled between both the parties and on the basis of compromise, applicant has been acquitted from the charges under Section 323 of IPC and his conviction under Section 324 of IPC is maintained, but sentence is modified as mentioned herein above. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, applicant has preferred this criminal revision. Applicant is not challenging the conviction part.
5. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the Judgment of co-ordinate bench this Court in the case of Gaya Prasad Sharma Vs. The State of M.P. vide order dated 09.10.2015 passed in WP No.1173/2012 , in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 04-11-2023 13:00:01 3 the case of Hanumant Singh Vs State of M.P. vide order dated 28.10.2015 passed in Cr. A. No.693/2015 and in the case of Rameshwari Malviya Vs. Sushila Dhruve order dated 26.07.2012 passed in Cr.R. No.2178/2011.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant is a Govt. Servant worked as Ameen in Water Resources Department, Shajapur, M.P. and on the basis of conviction in the aforesaid case, he has been fired from the services, therefore, he prays that applicant be given benefit of probation under Section 3 of the Probation of the Offenders Act and he should be released on probation and his sentence of fine be set aside.
7. Per contra, counsel for the respondent/ State opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection.
8. There is no material on record to indicate that the applicant had any previous conviction. In absence of such conviction, the applicant is treated as first offender. He is entitled to get admitted to benefit of probation under Section 3 of the Probation of the Offenders Act.
9. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, reproduced as under:-
"12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence."
10. A bare reading of the provision of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act makes it clear that if any other law does not provide anything contrary then in such case of a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of and extended the benefit of Section 3 or Section 4 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 04-11-2023 13:00:01 4 would not suffer with a disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.
11. Reliance is placed on Sukhnandan Vs. State of M.P. (C.G.) 2002(2) M.P.H.T. 34 , Satyanarayan Vs. State of M.P. 2003 (I) M.P.H.T. 39, Munna @ Shyamsunder Vs. State of M.P. 2004(2) M.P.H.T. 524 and Rajbir Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1985 SC 1278, wherein it has been held that benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused, who is a Government servant may be extended under Section 4 of the Act. This release shall not affect to accused's service.
12. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the nature of offence and the character of the applicant, while maintaining his conviction, it is directed that applicant shall be released on probation on keeping good conduct under Section 4 of the Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha, before whom the applicant is directed to appear within two weeks from today, shall release him after due execution of a bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to maintain good conduct for the next two years.
13. In the present case, upon release of the applicant after giving the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act would remove the disqualification as per the spirit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act as quoted herein above. However, the order of termination of the petitioner was passed on account of his conviction. Thus, after the removal of disqualification, the State authorities are required to reconsider the case of applicant in the context of the observations made herein above and appropriate order be passed in the matter of reinstatement.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the order impugned passed by the State Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 04-11-2023 13:00:01 5 Government is hereby quashed with a direction to consider the case of the applicant in the light of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act and appropriate order regarding reinstatement may be passed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
15. With the aforesaid observations, this revision stands disposed off.
16. In light of the aforesaid order, I.A. Nos.1876/2023, 2066/2023 and 1875/2023 are disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Anushree Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 04-11-2023 13:00:01