IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT REENU SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 473 OF 2006 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated Feb. 27, 2006 of Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) & Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2005 whereby he maintained the order of conviction of accused respondents passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate & Judicial Magistrate No.9 Jaipur City Jaipur in Case No. 78 of 2000 for offence under section 498A IPB, but while extending the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, ordered to release the accused respondents. Date of Order : February 2, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Rajesh Goswami, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Singh Shekhawat, for the non-petitioners 2 and 3. Mr. Ganesh Meena, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by Reenu Singh complainant petitioner against the order dated Feb. 27, 2006 of Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) & Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2005 whereby he maintained the order of conviction of accused respondents passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate & Judicial Magistrate No.9 Jaipur City Jaipur in Case No. 78 of 2000 for offence under section 498A IPC, but while extending the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, ordered to release the accused respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner filed a complaint at Police Station, Mahila Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur on Aujgust 29, 1999 whereby she asserted that since marriage she has been subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. On that report, the Police registered a case for offence under section 498 A IPC and started investigation. During the course of investigation, the police recorded statement of independent witnesses and after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet before the court concerned. During the course of trial of the case, the trial court recorded the statement of witnesses adduced by the prosecution and after hearing both the parties, convicted the accused respondents for offence under section 498 A IPC and sentenced them for one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo fifteen days imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the order of Judicial Magistrate the accused respondents preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge and the same was decided by the Special Judge(Sati Niwaran) and Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur vide order dated February 27, 2006 whereby , while maintaining the order of conviction of the accused respondents for offence under section 498 A IPC released the accused respondents extending the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Against this order of Addl. Sessions Judge, the present revision petition has been filed. 3. Mr. Goswarmi, learned counsel for the complainant petitioner contended that the accused respondents have been convicted under section 498 A by the trial court and the same was upheld by the appellate court whereby the entire facts and circumstances have been narrated, hence the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, extended by the appellate court is bad in eye of law and just contrary to the findings given by it. The learned counsel argued that not only the petitioner but a newly born child was given mal-treatment by the accused respondents, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the accused are not entitled to get the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondents Mr. Ashok Singh and Mr. Ganesh Meena, Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. There is no illegality in the order passed by the appellate court extending the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused respondents. Thus the order passed by the appellate court does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 5. For these reasons I dismiss the revision petition being devoid of merit. As the main petition has been dismissed the stay application also stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/