Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2357 of 2018 Revisionist :- Devchand And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Kumar Singh,Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.03.2018/19.03.2018 passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gazipur in Criminal Case No.4556 of 2012 (Ajaya Dubey vs. Devchand and others) convicting the revisionist for sentence of 6-6 months simple imprisonment to each for offence under section 323 IPC and 1-1 year simple imprisonment to each for offence under section 504 IPC and further directing the revisionists to pay Rs.2000/-Rs.2000/- each (total Rs.6000/0) to the complainant Ajay Kumar Dubey as compensation within one month and impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2018 passed by Appellate Court/Session Judge, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2018 (Devchand and others vs. Ajay Kumar Dubey and others) whereby the revisionists are released on probation under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation Act and also directing the revisionists that they shall appear before the Probation Officer on the last date of every month upto one year and they will produce personal bonds and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each within a week from the date of order and further directing the revisionist to pay Rs.2000/- each to the complainant Ajay Kumar Dubey as compensation within a week.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the revisionist nos. 1 and 4 are government servants. The trial court has convicted all the revisionists under section 323 IPC with six months simple imprisonment each and under section 504 IPC with one year simple imprisonment each and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently and apart from that they have also been imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. Against the said conviction order an appeal was preferred and the appellate court had converted the punishment into releasing them on probation as all the revisionists accused have been given the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act by releasing them on their furnishing personal bonds of Rs.20,000/- and two sureties of the like amount for maintaining peace and behaviour for one year with a further direction that they shall appear during this period every month before the Probation Officer. It is further argued that the revisionist nos. 1 and 4 are government servants, hence revision is preferred because the conviction might attach demerit and could cause prejudice to them.
The fear of the revisionists is also unfounded that the revisionist would suffer any disqualification as according to section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, no demerit would be attached to such an accused. For the sake of convenience, section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act is quoted herein-below:
"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 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.
In view of this, the court has gone through the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court dated 17.03.2018/19.03.2018 as well as judgment and order dated 13.7.2018 passed by the appellate court and does not find any infirmity because conclusion drawn by both the courts below are in accordance with the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution. No interference is required. The revision is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 AU