Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 658 (MP)

M. P. S. R. T. C. v. State of M. P.

1993-12-06

M.W.DEO

body1993
JUDGMENT This order shall also dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos. 183 of 93, 184 of 93, 185 of 93, 186 of 93, 187 of 93, 188 of 93 and 189 of 1993, as they raise identical question. It may be stated here that in Criminal Revisions Nos. 183 of 93, 188 of 93 and 189 of 93, the respondent accused is stated to have filed a revision against the conviction maintained by the Court of Sessions. It is made clear that this revision does not consider the merits of the aforesaid revisions filed by the accused in any manner. Coming to the matter for disposal in hand, it so happened that the respondent-accused was a conductor and was tried for an offence under S. 7 of the M.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Sewa (Bina Ticket Ke Yatra Ki Rok) Adhiniyam, 1974 and was convicted by the learned trying Magistrate. In appeal the learned Sessions Court maintained the conviction, but admitted the accused to the benefit of S. 3 of the Probaion of Offenders Act and observed in para 13 of the judgment to the effect that' 'the circumstances of the case do call for the benefit of S. 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act to be given to the accused-appellant with a direction that he be not required to loose his service, merely on account of his conviction in this case". The learned Sessions Judge referred to the case of Rajbir v. State of Haryana (AIR 1985 SC 1275 = Cr.L.R. (SC, 1985, page 285). However, at the end of the judgment the learned Sessions Court observed as follows: "It is further ordered that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the accused (petitioner)-appellant shall not loose his service." (emphasis supplied). The only prayer of the petitioner in this case is for expunging the aforesaid underlined portion to the effect that "the accused petitioner shall not loose his service "because it gives a blanket protection to the respondent against his removal or termination by the employer in any manner. It was contended on behalf of the accused that S. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act means to confer such a benefit on the accused if he is admitted to the benefit of probation. It was contended on behalf of the accused that S. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act means to confer such a benefit on the accused if he is admitted to the benefit of probation. A reading of S. 12 of the Act would show that it does not confer a blanket protection to the accused from his removal from service. In fact what the Supreme Court directed in the case of Rajbir (supra) was precisely in terms of S. 12 to give full effect to it. Having considered all the aforesaid circumstances it appears plain that the learned Sessions Judge had concluded the matter as stated above in para 13 of the judgment by directing that the accused be not required to loose his service, merely on account of his conviction in this case. This was in consonance with the direction in the case of Rajbir (supra) which was worded as follows: "The conviction should not affect his service". Now at the end of the judgment in para 14, the learned Sessions Judge probably missed to mention this further words "merely on account of his conviction in this case.", and, therefore, the expression remained to read "the accused-petitioner shall not lose his service". This expression has to be expunged because it is likely to be misunderstood even in relation to matters dehors the criminal appeal and the conviction under it. In the result the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the following words "the accused-petitioner shall not lose his service" shall be expunged and in its place the direction in the language of the Supreme Court in case of Rajbir (supra) to the effect "the conviction should not affect his service" shall be read. With this direction the revision stands, disposed of. AIR 1985 SC 1275 followed.