1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Srikishan Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.38/2007. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 2nd September, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Laxmi Kant on behalf of Mr. Biri Singh for the petitioner. Mrs.Nirmala Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: This revision petition has been filed under section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 3.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindauncity District Karauli in Criminal Appeal No.5/2004 by which the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused against the judgment dated 4.2.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City in criminal case no.379/1996 and while upholding the conviction granted them the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned appellate court has committed illegality while giving benefit of probation under the provisions of Probation of 2 Offenders Act to the accused-respondents. It is also contended that the accused has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned appellate court has properly considered the matter and granted benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. I have considered the submissions made before me. It is the case of the prosecution that one Shri Kishan lodged a written report at police station Todabhim district Sawai Madhopur on 2.8.1995 in relation to an incident. On the basis of the report FIR No.145/1995 was registered for the offences under sections 147, 149, 323, 341 and 324 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused- respondents for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 and 307 IPC. After hearing learned counsel for both the sides on charge, learned trial court framed charges under sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 read with 149 IPC against the accused- respondents. In all 12 witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case. In the statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., it was submitted that the prosecution story was false and the accused have been falsely implicated in the case. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 4.2.2004 acquitted the accused-respondents for the charge under section 326 IPC and convicted and sentenced them 3 under section 148 IPC to undergo one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo ten days simple imprisonment, under section 323 IPC to undergo three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo ten days simple imprisonment, under section 324 IPC to undergo one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment and under section 325 IPC to undergo three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo thirty days simple imprisonment. On appeal by the accused-respondents, the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 3.11.2006. The conviction of the accused-respondents under different sections of IPC was maintained but instead of sentencing them to jail considering the facts and circumstances of the case granted benefit of probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Each of the accused-respondents was also directed to pay a cost of Rs.2,700/- and out of the above amount received, it was directed that the injured shall be paid Rs.3,000/- each. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned appellate court has committed illegality in giving benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act is illegal is not liable to be accepted for the simple reason that the 4 provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act are mandatory in nature. The learned appellate court has assigned reasons as to why the respondents were given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. It has been observed by the learned appellate court that the incident related to the year 1996. The respondents have faced long trial and they should atleast be given one opportunity to mend themselves. No conviction was previously recorded against them. In the above circumstances, the respondents were given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The injured have been compensated in the present matter. I do not see a reason to interfere with the discretion judiciously exercised by the learned appellate court by giving benefit to the respondents of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. In the instant case, the evidence is not liable to be discussed for the simple reason that the conviction of the accused- respondents has been upheld by the learned appellate court and the point which has been urged before the court is that the accused-respondents were wrongly given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. In view of the fore-going discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J)