Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 15 (RAJ)

Ghanshyam alias Ganiya v. State of Rajasthan

2006-01-03

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 CrPC. read with Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the order dated 27.09.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar (for short, “the Appellate Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2001, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Judgment and order dated 15.09.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kuchaman City (for short “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 52/1999, was partly allowed and instead of sentencing the petitioner at once to any punishment of imprisonment, he was directed to be released under Section 4 of the Act on probation provided he furnishes a personal bond and a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-each to maintain the peace and tranquility and not to repeat the offence for a period of three years and appear and receive the sentence when called upon to do so during such period. The Appellate Court further directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/-under Section 5 of the Act as prosecution expenses. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned as also the record of the trial Court. 3. At the very out set, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does no want to challenge the order releasing him under Section 4 of the Act; however, he has confined his arguments only on the point of amount of Rs. 25,000/-directed to be paid by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Act as prosecution expenses and submits that the sum of Rs. 25,000/-is disproportionately high and the petitioner, being a poor person, cannot afford to pay such a huge amount as prosecution expenses. 4. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Appellate Court has not directed the petitioner to pay the amount to the complainant as compensation, on the contrary, directed to pay the amount of Rs. 25,000/-as prosecution expenses. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the direction to pay Rs. 25,000/- as prosecution expenses under Section 5 of the Act appears to be an excessive amount. 25,000/-as prosecution expenses. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the direction to pay Rs. 25,000/- as prosecution expenses under Section 5 of the Act appears to be an excessive amount. However, keeping all the facts and circumstances in view, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/-as prosecution expenses. 5. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order directing the petitioner to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Act is maintained. However, the amount directed to be paid as prosecution expenses, is reduced from Rs. 25,000/-to Rs. 2,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000/-as prosecution expenses before the trial Court within two months from today. The stay petition stands disposed of .