JUDGMENT
Panwar, J.
1. By this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.2.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Merta, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order only to the extent that the trial court while extending the benefit of probation under Section 5 also extended benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short the Act) which relates to disqualification attached to the conviction. The trial court held that the conviction would not adversely affect the service career of accused petitioner Ram Ratan. The order of the trial court was modified by the appellate court. The petitioner has challenged the order of the appellate court to the extent of its modifying the order of the trial court regarding grant of benefit of Section 12 of the Act.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and order of the trial court as well as that of the appellate court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in Khuman Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (1), wherein this Court held that if the accused has been given benefit under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 as well as Section 12 of the said Act, providing that the accused shall not suffer any disqualification, if any, attached to the conviction for an offence under the law, if the accused has been given the benefit of probation then the conviction of the accused will not, in any way, affect his service career if he is otherwise having unblemished service career.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that if the petitioner becomes disqualified while in Government service on the ground of misconduct, leading to conviction then despite he has been released under Section 5 of the Act, the stigma of the conviction is not wiped out and while releasing the accused any observation made by the trial court that it would not affect the service career of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. He has relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Bakshi Ram (2), and Additional D.I.G. of Police, Hyderabad v. P.R.K. Mohan (3).
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at the Bar.
7. The law is settled by the Supreme Court that despite the accused having been released under the Probation of Offenders Act, stigma of the conviction is not wiped out on such release and punishment for misconduct of the accused, if he is in government service remains intact even if the benefit of Section 12 and Section 14 of the Act is granted stating therein that the conviction does not suffer disqualification.
8. In Union of India v. Bakshi Ram (supra), the Apex Court held that in criminal trial, the conviction is one thing and sentence is another. The Court while invoking the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act does not deal with the conviction; it only deals with the sentence which the offender has to undergo. Instead of sentencing the offender, the court releases him on probation of good conduct. The conviction however, remains intact and the stigma of conviction is not obliterated. Section 12 of the Act does not preclude the department from taking action for misconduct leading to the offence or to his conviction thereon as per law. The section was not intended to exonerate the person from departmental punishment. It only directs that the offender “shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law”. Such law in the context is other law providing for disqualification on account of conviction. For instance, if a law provides for disqualification of a person for being appointed in any office or for seeking election to any authority or body in view of his conviction, that disqualification by virtue of Section 12 stands removed. That in effect is the scope and effect of Section 12 of the Act.
9. In Additional D.I.G. of Police Hyderabad v. P.R.K. Mohan (supra), The Supreme Court retreated the view taken in Union of India and others’s case (supra), and observed that it is settled law that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not preclude the department from taking action for misconduct leading to the offence or to his conviction thereon as per law. The Section was not intended to exonerate the person from department punishment.
10. In view of the law settled by the Supreme Court, in the instant case, the petitioner is entitled to be given benefit of Section 12 of the Act to the extent that disqualification attached to conviction would not come in the way for appointment to the office or seeking election to any authority or body or ward. However, the benefit of Section 12 of the Act will not preclude the employer from taking action for misconduct leading to the offence or to the petitioner’s conviction.
11. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of.