IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT KHALIL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No.576 OF 2005 under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment/order dated May 11, 2005 of Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur in Cr. Appeal No.44 of 2004. Date of Order : November 24, 2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr.Amir Aziz, for the petitioner. Mr.B.N.Sandhu, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Khalil, complainant, against the judgment/order of the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2004 whereby the accused respondents 2 to 4, while upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the CJM Sawai Madhopur were given the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act in Criminal Case No.660 of 1996. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of Parcha Bayan of injured Khalil, Police Station Malarna Dungar registered FIR No.68 of 1996 under sections 147, 323, 325, 307/149 IPC. In Parcha Bayan injured Khalil stated that on June 24, 1996 after 2.00 p.m. when they were sitting after Namaj, accused Maghrub, Maglub, Sayid, Rais, Sakir, Sabir, latif, Faiyaz, Maksud, Alim Khalid came armed with weapons and assaulted them. When their sister came to rescue she too was beaten. They were saved by the persons who were collected for Namaj. After completion of investigation the police filed challan under sections 147, 323, 325, 307/149 IPC. The Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions Sawai Madhopur, who transferred it to Special Judge, SC/ST Cases Court, Sawai Madhopur. The Special Judge vide his order dated November 8, 1996 dropped charge under Sections 307 IPC and sent the case to the Court of CJM Sawai Madhopur for trial. CJM Sawai Madhopur framed charge under sections 147, 325/149 and 323 IPC against the accused respondents, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. After recording statements of prosecution witnesses and statements of accused under sections 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing both the parties, CJM Sawai Madhopur, convicted and sentenced the accused respondents as under: Accused U/s. Maghrup@Marghub 147 One year Matlob Kha, Rauf rigorous Khan, Maruf Khan, imprisonment Alim Khan to each Maghrup@Marghub 325 Two years rigorous imprisonment to each with Fine1000/- in default one month SI Matlob Khan, Rauf 325/ Two years Khan, Maruf Khan, 149 rigorous Alim Khan imprisonment each with Fine1000/- in default one month SI Maghrup@Marghub 323/ Six months Matlob Kha, Rauf 149 rigorous Khan, Maruf Khan, imprisonment Alim Khan to each 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order extending the benefit of probation to the accused is bad in the eye of law since criminal cases are pending against them and they are habitual to use violence. The availability of gun with them besides other weapons itself reflects the type of men they are and whether such people are entitled to relaxation and benefit under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act becomes highly questionable for consideration of this Court to meet the ends of justice. The petitioner prayed for maintaining the judgment of conviction. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondents stated that while upholding the judgment of conviction the Sessions Judge after hearing them granted the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders. This judgment of the Sessions Judge based on reasons and looking to the fact that the complainant and the accused are from one family and they are facing trial since 1996, granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. This judgment of the Sessions Judge appears to be reasonable and the Sessions Judge further directed for giving compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,000 to complainant Khalil and Rs. 75O/- each to Smt. Nasim Bano and Khailid Ahmed. I have gone through the judgment of the Sessions Judge. The judgment passed by him is reasonable and does not call for any interference in revisional powers. The order of the Sessions Judge is maintained and the revision petition stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/