Joban Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 March, 2009

Crl.Rev.No. 366 of 2009                          1

       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                                 Crl.Rev.No. 366 of 2009
                                 Date of decision: 27.3.2009


Joban Singh
                                                         ......Petitioner

                          Versus


State of Punjab
                                                      .......Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA


Present:     Mr.S.S.Hira, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab

                          ****
SABINA, J.

The petitioner was tried for an offence under Sections

223 and 224 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) in FIR No.209

dated 2.11.2003 registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur. Vide

judgment and order dated 19.1.2007, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,

Hoshiarpur convicted the petitioner under Section 223 and 224 IPC

and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner had preferred an appeal. Vide judgment dated 5.11.2008

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, the petitioner

was ordered to be released on probation subject to his furnishing
Crl.Rev.No. 366 of 2009 2

personal bonds in the sum of Rs.3,000/- with one surety in the like

amount for a period of one year. It was further directed that the

petitioner shall keep peace and will be of good behaviour during the

period of probation. Hence, the present revision petition.

The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the Appellate

Court in para No.2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:-

“In brief, the case of the prosecution is that one Balbir

Singh son of Hukam Singh, resident of village Talwandi

Mange, Police Station Zira, Distt. Ferozepur, was in

police custody in case FIR No.139 dated 4.9.2003, under

Sections 364/420/34 of Indian Penal Code, Police

Station, Mukerian and he was lodged in the premises of

CIA/HQ, Hoshiarpur, vide Rapat No.14 dated 1.11.2003.

Accused-appellant Joban Singh was on Sentry duty at the

premises of CIA/HQ, Hoshiarpur. Head Constable

Resham Singh was on duty at CIA/HQ, Hoshiarpur, as

Moharrir Head Constable. Constable Amarjit Singh No.

745 took over duty as Sentry in place of accused-

appellant Joban Singh, at 4.00 pm on 1.11.2003.

Inspector Inderjit Singh was the Incharge of CIA/HQ,

Hoshiarpur. Constable Amarjit Singh informed him that

accused Balbir Singh was not found present in the

premises of CIA/HQ. Hoshiarpur. Finding that accused-

appellant had negligently suffered said Balbir Singh to
Crl.Rev.No. 366 of 2009 3

escape from confinement a written report to this effect

was sent to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police

(Detective), Hoshiarpur, by Inspector Inderjit Singh. On

directions of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective)

Hoshiarpur, present First Information Report under

Sections 223/224 Indian Penal Code, was registered at

Police Station City, Hoshiarpur.”

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been ordered to be

released on probation by the learned Appellate Court, but it was not

specifically mentioned in the order that he had been released on

probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

(‘the Act’ for short). Hence, the petitioner might be dismissed from

service.

This apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioner is

misconceived as it is apparent from the order dated 5.11.2008

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, that the

petitioner was given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the

Act and was released on probation for a period of one year subject to

his furnishing bonds in this regard.

As per Section 12 of the Act, notwithstanding anything

contained in any other law a person found guilty of an offence dealt

with under the provisions of Section 3 or 4 shall not suffer dis-

qualification, if any attaching to, a conviction of an offence under
Crl.Rev.No. 366 of 2009 4

such law. The petitioner was released on probation under Section 4

of the Act. Hence, he will not suffer any disqualification in service on

account of his conviction under Section 12 of the Act. No other

contention has been raised.

This petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(SABINA)
JUDGE
March 27, 2009
anita