Jhotwara, Jaipur v. For

Order

1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 397 of CrPC assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.07.2004 passed by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Case No.82/1997, whereby the trial Court convicted the accused- petitioner for the offence punishable u/S 72 of the JDA Act, 1982 and sentenced him to undergo six month’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-. The petitioner had further challenged the aforesaid order/judgment dated 01.07.2004 passed by the trial Court by filing a Criminal Appeal bearing No.59/2005 before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur City, [2025:RJ-JP:5160] (2 of 14) [CRLR-857/2005] Jaipur (for short ‘the Appellate Court’), whereby the learned Court vide order dated 01.09.2005 had reduced the sentence passed by the trial Court to one months’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-.

2. On filing of this revision petition, the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner was suspended vide order dated

09.09.2005 and he was released on bail.

3. Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner instead of arguing the appeal on its merits with regard to challenge to the conviction and sentence, confines his arguments for grant of benefit of probation to the petitioner under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’). Counsel further submits that except the present case, no case has been registered against the accused-petitioner. Counsel further submits that the accused- petitioner are living peacefully in the society without there being any criminal antecedents to his discredit. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner has faced trial for about 21 years. Thus, from the last about 21 years, the accused petitioner is facing mental agony and harassment because of pendency of criminal case registered against him. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the accused-petitioner may be given the benefit of probation under the provisions of the Act of

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the prayer made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not entitled for [2025:RJ-JP:5160] (3 of 14) [CRLR-857/2005] any kind of leniency in granting the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958.

5. Considered the submissions made by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Since the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has confined his prayer only to the extent of grant of probation to him under the provisions of the Act of 1958, this Court is examining the matter only to this extent.

7. Section 4 of the Act of 1958 nowhere says that the benefit of probation cannot be allowed to an accused who is above 21 years of age. The Act of 1958 deals with the powers of the Court to release certain offenders for good conduct. Section 4 of the Act of 1958 reads as under:- “4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.—(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. [2025:RJ-JP:5160] (4 of 14) [CRLR-857/2005] (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender. (4) The court making a supervision order under sub- section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. (5) The court making a supervision order under sub- section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned.”

8. This Court in the case of Nawal Kishore & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.483/1993) decided on 19.02.2024, after taking into consideration the judgment delivered by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in the case of Chinta Marandi @ Chintamani Marandi Vs. State of Orissa (CRREV No.393 of 2000) decided on 14.07.2022, which is related to benefit of giving probation to a convict under section 307 IPC, has also given the benefit of probation to the accused and in the present case the sentence awarded to the accused appellants is under section 325/149 IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:5160] (5 of 14) [CRLR-857/2005] This Court in para Nos. 14 and 15 of the aforesaid judgment has also observed as under:- “14. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved. 15. The main object of sentencing a convicted person is to bring in him certain character reformation and to keep him away from the society so as to see that the impact of his criminal character does not put any adverse impact on any other person.”

9. The Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 368/1991; Bagdawat Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 18.05.2022, has observed as under:-

12. In Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas(1974) 4 SCC, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- “The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society. In recalcitrant cases, punishment has to be deterrent so that others similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a carer of crime. But the novice who strays into the path of crime ought, in the interest of society, be treated as being socially sick. Crimes are not always rooted in criminal tendencies and their origin may lie in psychological factors induced by hunger, want and poverty. The Probation of Offenders act recognises the importance of environmental influence in the commission of crimes and prescribes a remedy whereby the offender can be reformed and rehabilitated in society. [2025:RJ-JP:5160] (6 of 14) [CRLR-857/2005]

13. In Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan RLW 2022 Raj 945, a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:- “Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act nature of offence is one of the major-criteria for determining whether benefit of this provision should be given to the concerned offender or not. His age would be another relevant factor and the circumstance in which the offence was committed may be 3rd important consideration...”