1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 112 of 2008 Date of Decision: 19.8.2009 *** Karnail Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent with Crl. Rev. No. 146 of 2008 *** Const. Jaljit Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate and Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Both the above-referred revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order since the challenge therein is to one and the same order. The learned trial Court as well as appellate Court below have held the petitioners, the police officials, guilty of having committed an offence under Section 223 IPC, as it was their negligence which resulted into escape of one Sukhjinder Singh @ Santy, an under-trial, from their custody. Although the petitioners were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.200/- each was imposed, in default whereof they were required to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month under Section 223 IPC, however, the appellate 2 court below, while affirming their conviction, modified their sentence by releasing them on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.10000/- each and in violation thereof to undergo the sentence awarded by the trial Court. Still dis- satisfied the petitioners have preferred the instant revision petitions. I have gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused to the hilt. It can also be not forgotten that the scope to interfere with the concurrent findings, by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. A perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below leaves no manner of doubt that the accident in question was outcome negligence of the petitioners, from whose custody an under-trial was escaped. Furthermore, the appellate Court below has already took a lenient view towards the petitioners by granting them the benefit of probation. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Dismissed. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that since the appellate Court below has not referred to in the impugned order that the petitioners are being extended the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act(for short, the Act), therefore, the petitioners, who are working in Police Department, might be dismissed. They have referred to a decision rendered by this Court in Crl. Revision No.366 of 2009, wherein, under similar circumstances, this Court made it clear that no disqualification can be attached to a person, who since has been released on probation of good conduct under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, in the light of Section 12 of the Act. The petitioners have been granted the relief of probation by releasing them on furnishing bond for good conduct, the powers which has been vested in the Court by means of Section 4 of the Act. Section 12 of the Act ibid provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. In other words, Section 12 does contemplate automatic disqualification of a person released on probation. Hence, it can be well said that the petitioners will not suffer any 3 disqualification in service on account of their conviction, as provided in Section 12 of the Act. With the aforesaid observations, the instant revisions stand dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in the connected revision petition. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 19,2009 Jiten