Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 91 (RAJ)

Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-11

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the Judgment and order impugned. 2. By this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 CrPC read with Section 11 (4) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act, 1958"), the petitioner-complainant has challenged the impugned Judgment and order dated 8.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chhoti Sadri (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter), by which the accused-respondent No. 2 has been convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC and instead of sentencing to any imprisonment, he was granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Act, 1958 and directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/-alongwith one surety in the like amount to keep the peace and tranquility and be of good behaviour for a period of six months with other usual conditions. Aggrieved by the order impugned granting the benefit of probation to the accused-respondent No. 2, the complainant has preferred this revision petition. 3. The complainant-petitioner sustained simple injuries at the hands of accused-respondent No. 2. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt. However, considering the unblemished antecedents of the accused-respondent No. 2 as also the fact that the accused-respondent No.2 is facing the trial since the year 2000, the trial Court, instead of convicting the accused-respondent at once to any imprisonment, extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Act, 1958 with the conditions enumerated in the impugned Judgment and order. 4. I have carefully perused the impugned Judgment and order passed by the Court below and after perusal thereof , I am of the view that the trial court has not committed any error or illegality in extending the benefit of probation under the Act, 1958 to the accused-respondent No. 2. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed accordingly.