Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jaideep Singh Bhadoria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR-3565-2017
(JAIDEEP SINGH BHADORIA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-01-2018
Mr.Shashank Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Mohit Nayak, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
This revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the sh Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to assail the judgment e dated 12.10.2017, passed by 17th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal ad in Criminal Appeal No.546/2017, whereby the judgment dated Pr 07.6.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in R.T.No.716/2012, awarded sentence of 2 years R.I. with fine of a hy Rs.1000/- and, in default of payment of fine to suffer 3 months R.I., has been modified to sentence till rising of the Court and fine amount ad has been enhanced to Rs.2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to M suffer additional R.I. for 3 months.
2. The petitioner prays that he is a government servant and of is youth having Engineering Degree and is search of employment in rt Private as well as Government Sectors, but the judgment in question ou would adversely affect his career. Therefore, the petitioner prays that he be given the benefit of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act C so that his future employment in Private as well as Government Sector h should not be affected, accordingly prayed that in the interest of ig justice the judgment dated 12.10.2017 be set aside and the petitioner H be acquitted from the charges with an observation that the conviction should not come in the way of his future employment.
3. The petitioner was charged for offence under section 332 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting Anil Mishra, a public servant, while performing his duties and tearing his uniform. The learned trial Court imposed sentence to the tune of 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. The appellate Court reduced the sentence till rising of the Court and enhanced the fine amount to Rs.2,000/-.
4. Perused the record. The evidence available on record has duly been analyzed and the concurrent finding of the courts below are not called for any interference. Therefore, the conviction is maintained. So far as the sentence is concerned it would be appropriate to mention that till rising of the Court and fine amount of Rs.2000/- is not excessive, therefore, the same are maintained.
5. It is stated at the Bar that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents. The petitioner is in his mid 30's. He is an Engineer and is aspiring for joining in any private or government service. He has deposited the fine amount. Considering the circumstances it is ordered that his conviction shall not affect his sh service career. In this regard the decisions in the cases of Rajbir vs. e State of Haryana, (1985) SCC (Cri) 445, Santosh vs. State of Madhya ad Pradesh, (2010) 3 MPHT 55 and Hanumant Singh vs. State of M.P., 2016 (2) MPLJ 652 may be referred.
6. Pr Accordingly, the petition is allowed. It is directed that the a conviction of the petitioner will not affect his service career.
hy Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to maintain good behaviour.
ad (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) M JUDGE of Digitally signed by RAJESH T MAMTANI rt Date: 2018.02.21 16:19:23 +05'30' ou RM C h ig H