[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 281/2007 ANIL DAS BAIJAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Date: 02.05.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Rajesh Goswami for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Devendra Singh Shekhawat for the complainant-respondent. *** The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 27.02.2007 passed by the Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 137/2005, whereby the Revisional Court enhanced the compensation awarded vide order dated 26.05.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sr. Division) No.10, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Case No. 179/2003 while convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 and 465 IPC. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent filed a criminal complaint on 05.05.1992, upon which the Court below took cognizance for the offence under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner and after recording pre- charge evidence, framed charges for the offences under Sections 406 and 465 IPC against the petitioner, which he denied and claimed trial. [2] After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on the record, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sr. Division) No.10, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide its judgment dated 26.05.2005 convicted the petitioner for the offences under Section 406 and 465 IPC but instead of sentence, granted him the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The trial Court also directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the trial Court dated 26.05.2005, the respondent-complainant filed a criminal revision and the Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur vide its order dated 27.02.2007, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 406 and 465 IPC, enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. Against the said order dated 27.02.2007 passed by the Revisional Court, the petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision petition on the ground that the Revisional Court has not properly appreciated the provisions of Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act which reads as under:- “5.“Power of Court to require released offenders to pay compensation and costs:- [3] (i) The Court directing the release of an offencer under section 3 or section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay- (a) such compensation as the court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence; and (b)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _” By quoting the aforesaid provisions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main ingredient of this Section i.e the word 'reasonable' has not been appreciated by the Revisional Court as the trial Court awarded Rs. 1,000/- as compensation, whereas the Revisional Court enhanced the same from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be reasonable. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the order impugned dated 27.02.2007 passed by the Revisional Court as also the order of the trial Court dated 26.05.2005. The Revisional Court while partly allowing the criminal revision filed by the complainant- respondent, considered the present value of 100 shares and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- including the expenses of litigation as the complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. [4] Upon careful perusal of the order impugned passed by the Revisional Court dated 27.02.2007 and after going through the record of the case, I find no illegality or error in the order impugned passed by the Revisional Court and the same requires no interference whatsoever by this Court. Consequently, the criminal revision petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Record be sent back forthwith. (K.S. RATHORE), J. /KKC/