1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Revision No.51 of 2002 Date of decision: 1.10.2008 Dhani Ram …Petitioner Vs State of HP ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. ________________________________________________________ Per R.B. Misra, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 1.9.2001 passed in Cr. Appeal No.55 of 1996 by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Mandi, whereby order dated 10.10.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Court No.2, Mandi has been affirmed. 2. Vide order dated 10.10.1996, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Court No.2, Mandi has adjudged police challan No. 44-1 of 1996, whereby the trial court sentenced the accused for the commission of offence under sections 457, 380/511 IPC on the basis of earlier judgment dated 24/25.6.1993 passed by Ld. 1 Whether the reports of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?. 2 Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, convicting the accused for the commission of offence under section 457 and 380/511 IPC. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner/accused was initially convicted by Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi vide judgment dated 24/25.6.1993 whereby the accused was held guilty for commission of offence under section 457 IPC read with section 380/511 of IPC. However, petitioner/accused in respect of sentence was given relaxation and thereby was released under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Undisputedly, petitioner/accused did not file an appeal against the above order dated 24/25/6/1993 passed by Ld. Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Mandi and accordingly the judgment of holding petitioner/accused guilty of the above offences had become final. 4. However, feeling aggrieved by the relaxation given by way of allowing the petitioner/accused to be released on Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the State Govt. preferred appeal before learned Sessions Judge under section 11 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The said appeal was adjudicated upon and was allowed without upsetting the finding of holding the petitioner/accused guilty by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi of his involvement under section 457 IPC read with section 380/511 IPC. However by disposing of the appeal, learned Add. Sessions Judge, Mandi directed the trial court to provide opportunity of being heard to the Public Prosecutor as well as to the petitioner/accused on the quantum of sentence and after calling for 3 the report of probation officer and also taking into consideration the age and other facts, to look into the fact as to whether appellant is first offender or not and to see as to whether the sentence order is in accordance with law or not. In compliance to the above order, trial court again considered the history sheet of the petitioner/accused and has provided opportunity of hearing to both the parties including petitioner/accused as well as to the prosecution and has heard on the quantum of sentence. 5. During the course of adjudication of police challan No. 44-1/96, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mandi District has noted that the petitioner was involved in as many as 20 cases and he has been convicted for two years rigorous imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs. 1500/- for his involvement in case No. 42/70 for the offence under section 454, 380 IPC by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kullu. Petitioner/accused was also convicted by SDM, Rampur for six months on 24.1.1973 in case No. 13/73 for his alleged involvement under section 53/109 Cr.P.C. Looking into the fact that the petitioner/accused is involved in as many as 20 cases and was sentenced in two criminal cases and is habitual offender and there was no chance of any improvement. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and after hearing the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 2, Mandi has awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under section 380/511 of IPC vide order dated 10.10.1996 and in case of default of payment of fine, the 4 accused has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and has also awarded three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the involvement of accused/petitioner in the offence under section 457 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, the accused has to go undergo rigorous imprisonment for three moths. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and further direction was given vide order dated 10.10.1996 to set off the period undergone by the petitioner/accused from his above mentioned conviction. 6. Being aggrieved by the above order dated 10.10.1996, petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 55/ 1996 before learned Sessions Judge, Mandi. While adjudicating the same, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi had considered the material on record before him and has also considered the directions given by the first appellate court, consequent upon which the order dated 10.10.1996 was passed. On analysis of the order dated 10.10.1996 and material on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi vide order dated 1.9.2001 has correctly arrived at finding that the petitioner/accused has not challenged by way of appeal the order dated 24/25/6/1993 where he was held guilty of his involvement of the offence punishable under section 457 read with section 380/511 IPC, as such, has rightly observed that the earlier verdict dated 24/25/6/1993 of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mandi has become final in reference of conviction is concerned. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi in his order has rightly found 5 that keeping in view the involvement of the petitioner /accused in 20 cases and keeping in view the fact that he has been convicted in several cases, in the facts and circumstances, petitioner was not entitled to be given relaxation regarding sentence and was not entitled to the benefit under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. According, the sentence awarded in reference to the conviction held by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mandi vide its order dated 10.10.1996 was rightly affirmed. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the documents, I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the judgment dated 1.9.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi, therefore, it is upheld. In exercise of my criminal jurisdiction under section 394 read with section 401 Cr.PC, I find that there is no scope in interfering in the order passed by Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the revision petition, petitioner shall have to be apprehended and to undergo the sentence as awarded by the courts below and for that purpose, his bail bonds have to be cancelled and he has to surrender to the trial court. ( R. B. Misra ), J. 1st October, 2008 (sl)