SBCr.Rev.No.1130/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1130/2010. Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order : 25/10/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri J.P. Gupta for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for State. ****** BY THE COURT:- This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner assailing the order of his conviction and sentence dated 5/10/2005 for offence under Section 452 IPC whereby he was convicted for the said offence and was sentended to three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-. Appeal filed by the accused petitioner against the impugned judgment was dismissed on the ground of conviction however, the learned appellate court directed that petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of probation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner, who is government servant confines his challenge to the aforesaid order to the extent that he should be granted the SBCr.Rev.No.1130/10. 2 benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being a government servant and Constable in the Police Department and it may adversely affect his service career. It is submitted that despite specific provision, learned appellate court has not assigned any reason why the benefit of Section 12 was declined to the petitioner particularly when he has already been extended the benefit of Section 4 of the said Act. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his submission cited the judgments in Madan Lal Mali Vs. State : 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 123, Shravan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2006(3) R.C.C. 1595 & 1994 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 504. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition however, could not justify why when the benefit of Section 4 was extended to the petitioner, benefit of Section 12 of the Act of 1958 was declined to him. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The incident in the present matter took place on 1/3/2002. All the eye-witnesses have turned hostile. Accused petitioner and other co- accused have been acquitted in so far as charges against them for offence under Sections 323, 324 SBCr.Rev.No.1130/10. 3 and 341/34 IPC are concerned. They have been only convicted and sentenced for offence u/S.452 IPC. Already when on the question of sentence, the learned appellate court has in its discretion granted probation u/S.4 of the Act of 1958, I find no justification for not giving benefit u/S.12 of the said Act to the petitioner, who is a government servant particularly when there is no other reported criminal case registered or pending against him and that there is no adverse report and ever since date of incident in the present case, he was never found involved in any other criminal case. Section 12 of the Act of 1958 provides that 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. Petitioner is held entitled for the benefit of Section 12 as he has not already been dismissed from service before passing the order by this Court. The revision petition is allowed in part subject to condition aforequoted. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/-