Station Raghunathgarh, District Sikar (Raj.) vs Dadiya, Teshil & District Sikar (Raj.)

: Ms. Akriti Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Naveen Dhuwan Mr. Pradeep Bochaliya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 26/08/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 24/09/2025

1. The petitioner Sultan Singh has challenged the judgement dated 05.01.2017 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Sikar in Regular Criminal Appeal No. 169/2016 whereby the conviction of accused-respondents No.2 and 3 for the offence under Section 341/34, 323/34 and 325/34 IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in Criminal Case No. 1574/2014 has been upheld but order of sentence has been modified and accused respondents No. 2 and 3 have been ordered to be (2 of 5) [CRLR-236/2017] released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1958”).

2. The essential facts giving rise to this case are that on

23.12.2009 when petitioner along with Manish and helper Raju reached near Bhomyaji Ki Khejari then Bhanwarlal, Dharmpal and Birju stopped them and started beating them.

3. On the basis of that, FIR bearing Registration No. 39/2010 dated 4.3.2010 under Section 341, 323, 379 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Raghunathgarh District Sikar against accused persons and after filing of charge-sheet, they were put to trial. The trial court vide its judgement dated 01.07.2015 convicted the accused under Sections 341/34, 323/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said order of conviction was upheld by appellate court while delivering the judgement dated 05.01.2017 but sentence awarded has been modified and benefit of probation was extended to the accused respondents No.2 and 3 and prosecution cost of Rs. Five thousand in all, was also imposed. Being aggrieved of that order of granting probation, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner contended that the judgement of appellate court dated 05.01.2017 is liable to be set aside as while extending the benefit of probation, the appellate court is duty bound to call for the report of the Probation Officer concerned as mandated under Section 4(2) of “Act of 1958” and the Court cannot pass order to release the (3 of 5) [CRLR-236/2017] accused persons on probation without obtaining report of the Probation Officer. In the present case, no such report was called for, therefore, the appellate court has committed grave error in extending the said benefit to the accused. To cementing her contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C.D Vs. State of Delhi & Anr., AIR 2005 SC

5. Opposing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the accused -respondents as well as learned Public Prosecutor both have submitted that while extending the benefit under Section 4, calling of the report from the Probation Officer is not mandatory because the provision of Section 4(2) of “the Act of 1958” clearly says about consideration of the report, “if any”, and nowhere mentions that report of the Probation Officer shall be called for, therefore, in absence of imperative provisions, the order of the appellate court carries no infirmities. Hence, the present revision petition filed by the petitioner on this sole ground is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully.

7. This is admitted position that in the case in hand, no report from the Probation Officer was called for though the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner mandates that Court is bound to call for a report as per sub- (4 of 5) [CRLR-236/2017] section (2) of Section 4 of “the Act of 1958” but the factual aspects of the present case cannot be ignored which speak themselves that in the present case, FIR was registered in the year 2010, the trial Court has passed the judgement on

01.07.2015, appeal was decided in the year 2017 and this criminal revision petition came up for final hearing in the year of 2025 which demonstrates that since 2010 till now the respondents No. 2 and 3 are facing the agony of trial.

8. The prosecution has not adduced any material indicating that since date of registration of the FIR against the accused respondents in the year 2010, they have indulged themselves in any another criminal activity therefore absence of any criminal antecedents goes to show that the incident of 2010 was a solitary one.

9. There is no dissension that respondents No. 2 and 3 has no criminal past and it was their first offence.

10. The appellate court by order dated 05.01.2017 directed the private respondents to be released upon execution of the bond of good behaviour for a period of six months and that period of six months has already been expired in the year 2017 itself.

11. At this stage, it will be appropriate to state that “the Act of 1958” containing benevolent provisions was introduced with the intention of reformation and rehabilitation of the offender as a useful and self-reliant member of society without subjecting him to the deleterious effects of Jail life, considering this aspect, (5 of 5) [CRLR-236/2017] when substantial justice and technical consideration are opposed to each other, cause of substantial justice has to be preferred.

12. In the above scenario, it will be a futile exercise and waste of judicial time by remanding the matter to the Appellate Court to pass a fresh appropriate order especially when no adverse report is received against accused respondents from the year 2010 till now.

13. Therefore, I do not find any justification to allow this revision petition and thereby it is dismissed accordingly. bmg /41 (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J

: Ms. Akriti Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Naveen Dhuwan Mr. Pradeep Bochaliya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 26/08/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 24/09/2025

1. The petitioner Sultan Singh has challenged the judgement dated 05.01.2017 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Sikar in Regular Criminal Appeal No. 169/2016 whereby the conviction of accused-respondents No.2 and 3 for the offence under Section 341/34, 323/34 and 325/34 IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in Criminal Case No. 1574/2014 has been upheld but order of sentence has been modified and accused respondents No. 2 and 3 have been ordered to be (2 of 5) [CRLR-236/2017] released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1958”).

2. The essential facts giving rise to this case are that on

23.12.2009 when petitioner along with Manish and helper Raju reached near Bhomyaji Ki Khejari then Bhanwarlal, Dharmpal and Birju stopped them and started beating them.

3. On the basis of that, FIR bearing Registration No. 39/2010 dated 4.3.2010 under Section 341, 323, 379 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Raghunathgarh District Sikar against accused persons and after filing of charge-sheet, they were put to trial. The trial court vide its judgement dated 01.07.2015 convicted the accused under Sections 341/34, 323/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said order of conviction was upheld by appellate court while delivering the judgement dated 05.01.2017 but sentence awarded has been modified and benefit of probation was extended to the accused respondents No.2 and 3 and prosecution cost of Rs. Five thousand in all, was also imposed. Being aggrieved of that order of granting probation, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner contended that the judgement of appellate court dated 05.01.2017 is liable to be set aside as while extending the benefit of probation, the appellate court is duty bound to call for the report of the Probation Officer concerned as mandated under Section 4(2) of “Act of 1958” and the Court cannot pass order to release the (3 of 5) [CRLR-236/2017] accused persons on probation without obtaining report of the Probation Officer. In the present case, no such report was called for, therefore, the appellate court has committed grave error in extending the said benefit to the accused. To cementing her contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C.D Vs. State of Delhi & Anr., AIR 2005 SC

5. Opposing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the accused -respondents as well as learned Public Prosecutor both have submitted that while extending the benefit under Section 4, calling of the report from the Probation Officer is not mandatory because the provision of Section 4(2) of “the Act of 1958” clearly says about consideration of the report, “if any”, and nowhere mentions that report of the Probation Officer shall be called for, therefore, in absence of imperative provisions, the order of the appellate court carries no infirmities. Hence, the present revision petition filed by the petitioner on this sole ground is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully.

7. This is admitted position that in the case in hand, no report from the Probation Officer was called for though the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner mandates that Court is bound to call for a report as per sub- (4 of 5) [CRLR-236/2017] section (2) of Section 4 of “the Act of 1958” but the factual aspects of the present case cannot be ignored which speak themselves that in the present case, FIR was registered in the year 2010, the trial Court has passed the judgement on

01.07.2015, appeal was decided in the year 2017 and this criminal revision petition came up for final hearing in the year of 2025 which demonstrates that since 2010 till now the respondents No. 2 and 3 are facing the agony of trial.

8. The prosecution has not adduced any material indicating that since date of registration of the FIR against the accused respondents in the year 2010, they have indulged themselves in any another criminal activity therefore absence of any criminal antecedents goes to show that the incident of 2010 was a solitary one.

9. There is no dissension that respondents No. 2 and 3 has no criminal past and it was their first offence.

10. The appellate court by order dated 05.01.2017 directed the private respondents to be released upon execution of the bond of good behaviour for a period of six months and that period of six months has already been expired in the year 2017 itself.

11. At this stage, it will be appropriate to state that “the Act of 1958” containing benevolent provisions was introduced with the intention of reformation and rehabilitation of the offender as a useful and self-reliant member of society without subjecting him to the deleterious effects of Jail life, considering this aspect, (5 of 5) [CRLR-236/2017] when substantial justice and technical consideration are opposed to each other, cause of substantial justice has to be preferred.

12. In the above scenario, it will be a futile exercise and waste of judicial time by remanding the matter to the Appellate Court to pass a fresh appropriate order especially when no adverse report is received against accused respondents from the year 2010 till now.

13. Therefore, I do not find any justification to allow this revision petition and thereby it is dismissed accordingly. bmg /41 (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J