Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1068 (RAJ)

Kalawati(Smt. ) v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-07

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal revision petition u/s. 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner-complainant has challenged the order dated 15.5.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara (for short `the trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 534/2003 State of Rajasthan v. Dilip Kumar whereby the trial Court convicted respondent No. 2-Dilip Kumar for the offences u/ss. 498-A & 323 IPC. However, instead of sentencing him at once to any imprisonment, he was released on probation of good conduct u/s. 360 Cr.P.C. and was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the judgment and order impugned. 3. The accused-respondent No. 2 was put to trial in a State case for the offences noticed above. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. L.C. Maida, PW-2 Kailash Giri, PW-3 Ramesh, PW-4 Smt. Shakuntala, PW-5 Smt. Kalawati and PW-6 Smt. Hantok and produced certain documents Exhibit P/1 to P/5. The accused-respondent No. 2 made a statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. 4. The trial Court on hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish the case against the accused-respondent No. 2 beyond reasonable doubt. On proper and sound appreciation of evidence the trial Court found the accused-respondent No. 2 guilty of offences noticed above. However, instead of sentencing him at once to any imprisonment, the accused-respondent No. 2 was granted the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. 5. The State has not challenged the order granting benefit of probation. However, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition. 6. On perusal of the judgment and order impugned, it appears that a fine of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed on the respondent No. 2 and he has been directed to deposit the fine. On depositing the fine, it was directed that the same be paid to the complainant as compensation. 7. 6. On perusal of the judgment and order impugned, it appears that a fine of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed on the respondent No. 2 and he has been directed to deposit the fine. On depositing the fine, it was directed that the same be paid to the complainant as compensation. 7. Section 360 Cr.P.C. provides that when any person not under twenty one years of e is- convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had 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, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three years) as the Court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 8. Section 361 Cr.P.C. further provides that where in any case, the Courtcould have dealt with, (a) an accused person u/s. 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or (b) a- youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders; but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reason for not having done so. 9. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show any adverse antecedents as also the respondent is not previously convicted. There appears to be no special reason to deny the benefit of probation. In my view, the trial Court was justified in extending the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned. The revision petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******