IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2010 Date of Decision: 06.05.2010 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Chaman Lal. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. No Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The petitioner challenges the order of his conviction passed by learned Trial Court as upheld by the learned Appellate Court. The petitioner was released after being given the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2. In the operative part of the sentence the trial court holds that: “After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record on file. From the perusal of the record, it is 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 admitted fact that the convict Chaman Lal is first offender. He is young man of aged about 30 years. He has to look after her wife and minor children. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is a fit case where the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can be extended. Thus, the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act is extended to the convict with a view to reform himself in near future. The convict is ordered to be released after due admonition. His personal and surety bonds are discharged. The case property i.e. kassi Ext. P-1 is ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of limitation period and in the event of an appeal the case property be dealt with as per the orders of the learned Appellate Court. A copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused free of costs. The file, after its due completion be consigned to record room.” I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The apprehension which has been expressed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the judgment of conviction would stand in the way of the petitioner in the suit for damages which has been instituted by the complaint against him. 3. It is trite to observe that damages in a civil suit have to be established independently and can not follow as a matter of course. The relevance of the judgment rendered by a court in criminal proceedings is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the judgment sustains, the conviction would attract the bar of disqualification in service etc. This apprehension is ill founded. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act provides:- “12. 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 not 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.” It is obvious which I find from the bare reading of this Section that once the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act has been granted, a person is not to suffer disqualification attaching to conviction under law. Learned counsel also places reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in Rajbir Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1985 S.C. 1278 on this issue. This is the fundamental law. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. All interim order (s) shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. May 06, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge