Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 380 (RAJ)

Pritam Kumar Sankhla v. State of Rajasthan

2018-02-01

SABINA

body2018
ORDER : Sabina, J. 1. Petitioners had faced trial qua offence punishable under Sections 341, 323/34 Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.'). 2. Trial court vide order dated 31.03.2016 ordered the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 324 I.P.C. Vide order, of the even date, petitioners were granted benefit of probation under section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 17.04.2017. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, although, petitioners have been ordered to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Act but benefit of Section 12 of the Act has not been extended to them. 4. Section 12 of the Act reads as under:- "Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence." 5. Thus, as per the above provision, when an accused is granted probation under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act, he shall not suffer any disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Section 12 is clear and unambiguous. Trial Court was not required to specifically state in the order that the petitioners would be entitled to benefit of Section 12 of the Act. The provision of Section 12 of the Act is liable to be extended to an accused, who has been ordered to be released on probation by giving him benefit of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, petitioners have been granted benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioners that they would not be entitled to benefit of Section 12 of the Act is mis-founded as the petitioners are entitled for benefit of Section 12 of the Act. 6. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.