JUDGMENT
S.K. Agarwal, J.
1. This revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18.2.2002,
passed by the court of Sh. S.N. Gupta, ASJ, Delhi, while
setting aside the conviction of the petitioner under
Sections 420 read with 511 IPC and reducing the sentence
awarded to petitioner under Section 471, from one year to
six months RI and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default S.I. for
three months, in case FIR No. 54/90, under Sections
420/468/471 IPC, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
2. Facts in brief are: that on or about 23.10.89
petitioner produced a domicile certificate bearing No. 1413
dated 5.8.89 purported to have been issued by
Sub-divisional Officer, Haldwani (Civil); knowing the
same to be a forged document for seeking some exemption in
height for selection as sub-inspector in Delhi Police;
and claimed himself to be a person belonging to hill area.
Before the petitioner could be appointed, on a suspicion
being raised, certificate was got verified and the same
was found to be forged. Case was registered and after
investigation challan was filed. The trial court, vide
judgment and order dated 1.11.2002 held the petitioner
guilty under Sections 471 and 420 read with 511 IPC and
sentenced him to undergo RI for one year with fine of
Rs. 5,000/- in default, S.I. for three months. In the
appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was
dismissed on 18.2.2002. The sentence awarded was reduced
from one year R.I. to six month R.I. for the offence
under Section 471 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The
conviction for offence under Sections 420/511 IPC was
set-aside.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner did not press the
revision on merits and prayed for a lenient view on
sentence. He submits that petitioner suffered pain and
agony of trial for about 12 years; he did not derive any
advantage on the basis of forged domicile certificate
purported to have been issued by Sub-divisional Officer,
Haldwani (Civil); he is above 35 year old having three
minor school going children; and he has already undergone
sentence of about one and half month. Therefore, he prays
that he be released on probation under Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 or the sentence be reduced. Learned
counsel for State submits that quantum of sentence is a
matter of discretion by the court.
4. The object of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 is to prevent the youthful offenders from association
with hardened criminals of mature age. The object is in
consonance with the present trend in the field of
penology. It affords an opportunity to the convict having
regard to the circumstances of the case, the nature of the
offence and the character and antecedents of the offender
to reform himself.
5. In this case, report of the Probation Officer
was also called. It confirms that petitioner has three
minor children, i.e., two daughters aged about 13 years,
10 years studying in 7th and 5th standard, and one son
aged about 3 years. The economic condition of the
petitioner is poor; father of petitioner is retired army
personnel getting Rs. 3000/- as pension. It is stated that
the petitioner was running “Kirana” shop.
6. Taking into consideration the nature of the
offence and report of Probation Officer and the fact that
petitioner has suffered pain and agony of trial for about
12 years, a case for release of the petitioner on
probation is made out.
7. In view of above, revision petition is partly
allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on his
entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one
local surety in the like amount to keep peace and be of
good behavior, for two years,and to appear and receive
sentence whenever called upon during the said period.
8. With the above modification, revision petition
stands disposed of.
9. dusty.
