Ram Ratan Vs. State of M.P.

.....are not caused during the use of arising out of use of motor vehicle yet compensation is awarded; (iii) where the owner of the vehicle feels that insurance company has been improperly exonerated from payment of compensation; and (iv) claimant may claim the amount of compensation such as loss of suffering or medical treatment, which has not been awarded by the claims tribunal though sufficient evidence is available on record.- section 173(2); remedy of appeal under held, remedy of appeal under section 173(2) is not available to assail award passed by the m.a.c.t if the amount in dispute is less than rs.10,000/-. aggrieved party has the remedy of revision under section 115 of c.p.c., the constitutional remedy under articles 226/227 stands barred in view of alternative efficacious remedy under section 115 of c.p.c., - jain, further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to get benefit of release on probation of good conduct under section 360, cr. further as the applicant assaulted the complainant, a public servant with shoe to deter him from dischargeof his duties, he is not entitled to be considered for release on probation of good conduct as the court has to consider the age, character, or antecedents and the circumstances in which the offence was committed for release on probation under section 360, cr.orderuma nath singh, j.1. heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. shri jain submits that once the applicant has been acquitted of offence under section 332, ipc, he becomes entitled to be acquitted also of offence under section 353, ipc, mr. jain, further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to get benefit of release on probation of good conduct under section 360, cr.pc. 3. smt. sharma, appearing for the state submits that this court in criminal revision should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and as the findings of the courts below is categorical that the applicant caused assault with shoe, to the complainant, a public servant, he should not be considered for the benefit of release on probation. 4. on due consideration of rival submissions, i am of the considered view that the submissions of mr. jain have no force. the learned courts below have recorded acquittal of offence under section 332, ipc on the ground that the applicant did not cause hurt voluntarily and not for the reason that the complainant was not a public servant, therefore, the conviction of the applicant recorded under section 353, ipc does not suffer from any illegality to necessitate interference of this court in criminal revision. further as the applicant assaulted the complainant, a public servant with shoe to deter him from dischargeof his duties, he is not entitled to be considered for release on probation of good conduct as the court has to consider the age, character, or antecedents and the circumstances in which the offence was committed for release on probation under section 360, cr.pc. 5. thus, the criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed.