1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Rev. No. 112 of 2008
Date of Decision: 19.8.2009
***
Karnail Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab
.. Respondent
with Crl. Rev. No. 146 of 2008
***
Const. Jaljit Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate and
Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Both the above-referred revision petitions are being disposed of
by this common order since the challenge therein is to one and the same
order.
The learned trial Court as well as appellate Court below have
held the petitioners, the police officials, guilty of having committed an
offence under Section 223 IPC, as it was their negligence which resulted
into escape of one Sukhjinder Singh @ Santy, an under-trial, from their
custody.
Although the petitioners were sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.200/- each was
imposed, in default whereof they were required to undergo further simple
imprisonment for one month under Section 223 IPC, however, the appellate
2
court below, while affirming their conviction, modified their sentence by
releasing them on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on
their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.10000/- each and in violation
thereof to undergo the sentence awarded by the trial Court. Still dis-
satisfied the petitioners have preferred the instant revision petitions.
I have gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below.
Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the
prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused to the hilt. It can also be not
forgotten that the scope to interfere with the concurrent findings, by this
Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. A perusal of the
judgments passed by the Courts below leaves no manner of doubt that the
accident in question was outcome negligence of the petitioners, from whose
custody an under-trial was escaped. Furthermore, the appellate Court below
has already took a lenient view towards the petitioners by granting them the
benefit of probation. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment. Dismissed.
Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners
have contended that since the appellate Court below has not referred to in
the impugned order that the petitioners are being extended the provisions of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act(for short, the Act), therefore,
the petitioners, who are working in Police Department, might be dismissed.
They have referred to a decision rendered by this Court in Crl. Revision
No.366 of 2009, wherein, under similar circumstances, this Court made it
clear that no disqualification can be attached to a person, who since has
been released on probation of good conduct under the provisions of
Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, in the light of Section 12 of the Act.
The petitioners have been granted the relief of probation by
releasing them on furnishing bond for good conduct, the powers which has
been vested in the Court by means of Section 4 of the Act. Section 12 of the
Act ibid provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law,
a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with the provisions of section
3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a
conviction of an offence under such law. In other words, Section 12 does
contemplate automatic disqualification of a person released on probation.
Hence, it can be well said that the petitioners will not suffer any
3
disqualification in service on account of their conviction, as provided in
Section 12 of the Act.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant revisions stand
dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in the connected revision petition.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
August 19,2009
Jiten