Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
P.J. Radadia vs State Bank Of Saurashtra on 26 April, 1993 cites

Union Of India And Ors vs Bakshi Ram on 1 March, 1990

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no case has been made out to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. It is an admitted fact that a criminal case was filed against the petitioner wherein, he pleaded guilty and was convicted. The contention of the petitioner that when probation is granted, it cannot be said that a person is convicted is devoid of any merit. The point is concluded by decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Personnel Officer v. T.R. Challappan, reported in (1976-I-LLJ-68) and reiterated in the case of Union of India v. Bakshi Ram reported in 1990-I-LLJ-498. In both the cases, the Court held that the release of the offender on probation does not obliterate the stigma of conviction. In criminal trial, conviction is one thing and sentence is another. The Court while invoking the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not interfere with conviction. It only deals with sentence the offender has to undergo. Instead of sentencing the offender, the Court releases him on probation of good conduct. The correction however, remains untouched and undisturbed. In fact, finding of guilt and conviction by a competent Court is a sine qua non for the order of release of offender on probation. Here justice is tempered with mercy intended to reform the offender with a view to seeing that he does not become hardened criminal. I am, therefore, unable to accept the argument of Mr. Hathi that the order releasing the petitioner on probation obliterated conviction and hence the petitioner could claim reinstatement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 60 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1