Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1981 DIGILAW 327 (RAJ)

Magh Singh v. State of Rajasthan

1981-08-04

S.K.M.LODHA

body1981
JUDGMENT 1. - It is not necessary to state the facts leading to this revision petition as Mr. M L. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed only one point before me, namely that the accused petitioner should be given benefit of Section 360, Cr. P.C. 2. The accused-petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 1, Sri Ganganagar under Section 54 (a)(c) and (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act (No. II of 1950)(for short the Act herein). He sentenced the accused-petitioner to 9 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- on each count and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for the one month. It may be stated here that on behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that as he is the first offender, he may be given benefit of the probation of Offenders Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1958). The learned judicial Magistrate declined to give him the benefit of the Act of 1958. The accused petitioner filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence. The learned sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar held that the offence under s. 54 (a) (c) and (d) of the Act has been established against the accused petitioner. He however, reduced the sentence of imprisonment and fine. He ordered that the accused petitioner would under go 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a Sue of Rs. 100/- on each count and in default of payment thereof, to undergo further regorous imprisonment of one month. In this way, he accepted the appeal in part in so far as it related to the sentence. The petitioner has filed this revision petition questioning the correctness of the judgment dated July 22, 1981 of the sessions Judge, Sriganganagar. 3. Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised one contention only. He submitted that the offence under s. 54 of the Act is punishable with three years imprisonment and a fine which may extend to Rs. 2000/-, but still it does not exclude the applicability of the provisions of s. 360, Cr. P.C. 4. It was held in Hazari v. The State of Raj., 1978 Cr.L.J. (Raj.) 514 by Kudal, J., that keeping in view the intention of the Legislature as embodied in ss. 360, 361, Cr. 2000/-, but still it does not exclude the applicability of the provisions of s. 360, Cr. P.C. 4. It was held in Hazari v. The State of Raj., 1978 Cr.L.J. (Raj.) 514 by Kudal, J., that keeping in view the intention of the Legislature as embodied in ss. 360, 361, Cr. P.C. 1973, it does not appear unreasonable to extend the benefit of s. 360. Cr. P.C. to the accused petitioner. In that case, the accused-petitioner was convicted under s. 54 (c) of the Act and sentenced to 9 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment thereof, to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. Relying on Smt. Somali v. The State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 267 of 1980 decided on September 8, 1980) , I also took the same view in Jagta Ram v. the State of Rajasthan, 1981 B.C.C. 1. In Smt. Somalis case (Supra), it was held that unless any Act excludes the applicability of s. 360,Cr. P.C. or the Act of 1958, the mere fact that the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence is six months or so, is not sufficient to refuse the benefit of the provisions of the Act of 1958 and that it will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether benefit of the above mentioned provisions should be extended to the accused or not. section 360, Cr. section 360, Cr. P.C. came up for examination before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bishnu Deo v. The State of West Bengal, 1979 AIR SC 964 wherein it was observed: "Section 360 of the 1973 Code re-enacts in substance, section 562 of the 1898 Code and provides for the release on probation of good conduct or after admonition any person not under twenty one years of age who is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or any person under twenty one years of age or any woman who is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if no previous offence is proved against the offender, and if it appears to the Court, having regard to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct or after admonition. If the Court refrains from dealing with an offenders under section 360 or under the provisions of the probation of Offenders Act, or any other law for the treatment, training, or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, where the Court could have done so, sec. 361, which is a new provision in the 1973 Code makes it mandatory for Court to record in its judgment the special reasons for not doing so." The learned Judicial Magistrate declined to give the benefit of the Act of 1958 under the misapprehension that such benefit is not available where minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence. This is contrary to what has been laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to above. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show me from the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar which is under revision, that the contention to this effect was raised before him. He, however, submitted that failure to raise such contention will not preclude from urging before this Court that the benefit of s. 360, Cr.P.C. should be extended to the accused-petitioner, in view of s. 360 (4), Cr.P.C. 5. The offence was committed on 5-11-1976. The learned Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner on 5-2-1980. The conviction was maintained and the sentence reduced by the learned Sessions Judge,Sriganganagar on 22-7-1981. Mr. The offence was committed on 5-11-1976. The learned Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner on 5-2-1980. The conviction was maintained and the sentence reduced by the learned Sessions Judge,Sriganganagar on 22-7-1981. Mr. Garg Submitted that the accused petitioner is the first offender and was not previously convicted.This is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Mr. Garg further submitted that the accused-petitioner is an agriculturist. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that having regard to the character and the age of the accused-petitioner,the case of the petitioner is fully covered by s. 360, Cr.P.C. No good reason has been shown by the learned public prosecutor as to why the accused-petitioner should not be dealt with under s. 360. Cr.P.C. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to give the benefit of s. 360. Cr P.C. to the accused-petitioner. The conviction of the accused-petitioner under s. 54(a), (c) and (d) is maintained and revision petition is dismissed on merits., but having regard to the facts, which have been narrated here in above, bearing on the question of giving benefit of s. 360 Cr.P,C.consider it expedient that the accused-petitioner should be given benefit of Section 360, Cr.P.C. I, therefore, direct that the accused-petitioner shall be released on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1000/- and one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence whenever and wherever called upon to do so during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The accused-petitioner will furnish the personal bound and surety to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar.Revision Partly Allowed. *******