1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Ram Swaroop Sharma & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.741/2008. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 21st July, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. J.P. Gupta for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the judgment dated 18th June, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No.12/2007 (131/2007) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was partly allowed and benefit was given to the petitioner under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act upholding the conviction of the petitioners passed by the learned trial court. For the disposal of this revision petition, the facts in brief, are that the complainant Shanker Lal submitted a written report on 16.8.2002 before the police station Ramganj, Ajmer alleging therein that Ramdev was breaking the walls of his house and when he was stopped then he along with five persons came at the spot and gave beatings to the complainant side. On this report, 2 a first information report was registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under section 323, 341 and 451 IPC against the accused petitioners. Charges were framed accordingly to which accused denied. In all nine witnesses were produced by the prosecution and eight documents were exhibited from the side of the prosecution. The accused-petitioners denied the allegations levelled against them in their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence three witnesses were examined and nine documents were tendered in evidence. The learned trial court after hearing both sides, convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 323, 341 and 451 IPC and sentenced them for various terms. Feeling dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer which came to be decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Ajmer. The appeal was partly allowed by upholding the judgment of conviction but instead of sentencing the accused-petitioners, benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders act was granted to them. It is against the above order, this revision petition has been filed. It is contended that the offences are only under section 323, 341 and 451 IPC, the petitioner no.1 is a government servant, there is no previous conviction recorded against him, therefore, in case the judgment of conviction remains then he may loose his 3 job. It is also contended that petitioner no.3 is a student, his entire career is ahead of him. It is also contended that in the above circumstances, the court is required to observe that probation will not be a disqualification attaching to the conviction with regard to the service and other consequential benefits which may otherwise accrue or be admissible to him. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that since the conviction has not been challenged, therefore, the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court requires no interference. I have considered the submissions made before me. It appears that the petitioner no.1 is a government servant and petitioner no.3 is a student. In the case of Smt. Radha through State Vs. Khajan Singh and others 1994(2) WLN 114 and in the case of Madan Lal Mali Vs. State 2008 WLC (Raj.) 123, this court has granted relief as sought by the petitioner. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads thus: “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, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.” Thus, it appears that in the present case also, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act has been given to the 4 petitioners, therefore, I deem it proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to allow this revision petition in so far as it relates to petitioners no.1 and 3. In the result, this revision petition, as regards petitioner no.2 is dismissed and as regards petitioners no.1 and 3 is allowed. It is directed that the conviction of petitioners no.1 and 3, namely Shri Ram Swaroop Sharma and Shri Shailendra Sharma will not affect their future service career as they have already been granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 vide judgment dated 18.6.2008 which has since been modified to the above extent. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court for its record. (S.P. PATHAK,J)