Sanjiv @ Lalla Swami Vs. Ramarao Sheeprat Aathanker - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1044911
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJul-03-2013
AppellantSanjiv @ Lalla Swami
RespondentRamarao Sheeprat Aathanker
Excerpt:
m.cr.c.no.7956/2013 3.7.2013 shri manish gavane, advocate for the applicants. shri a.k.shukla, dy. ga for the state. heard on question of admission. this petition has been filed by the applicants invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the cr.p.c.being aggrieved by order dated 21.11.2011 passed by sessions judge, chhindwara in criminal revision no.4/2011 setting aside the order of conviction recorded by jmfc, chhindwara vide order dated 28.10.2010 passed in criminal case no.2620/2007. the facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that applicants were prosecuted before jmfc, chhindwara on the report of respondent no.1. after recording the evidence adduced by prosecution and defence, learned jmfc recorded the conviction of applicants under section 323/34 of the ipc. however, applicant nos.2 and 3 were released on probation. being aggrieved thereby complainant/respondent no.1 filed a criminal revision before the sessions court. the learned sessions judge, chhindwara set aside the order passed by jmfc, hence this petition. learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a revision cannot be filed against the order passed under the probation of offenders act. an appeal is specifically provided under section 11 of the probation of offenders act. this point was also raised before the revisional court, however, same has not been considered. even otherwise, the trial court has the jurisdiction to release the applicants on probation, therefore, the revisional court committed illegality in setting aside the order passed by the jmfc under the probation of offenders act. if the impugned order is allowed to be continued, it would amount to abuse of process of court, therefore, the impugned order be set aside. i have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the order passed by revisional court along with the judgment dated 28.10.2010 passed by the jmfc. it reveals from a bare perusal of judgment dated 28.10.2010 that the applicants were released on probation by jmfc after exercising the jurisdiction under section 4 of the probation of offenders act. if anyone was aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the remedy of appeal is provided under section 11(2) of the probation of offenders act, 1958 to the court, to which the appeal ordinary lie from the sentences of the former court. this opportunity has not been extended not only to the accused but also to the prosecution. thus, the revisional court committed illegality in setting aside the order passed by the trial court. consequently, the petition is allowed. order dated 21.11.2011 passed by sessions judge, chhindwara in criminal revision no.4/2011 is hereby set aside. certified copy as per rules. (g.s.solanki) judge pb
Judgment:

M.Cr.C.No.7956/2013 3.7.2013 Shri Manish Gavane, Advocate for the applicants.

Shri A.K.Shukla, Dy.

GA for the State.

Heard on question of admission.

This petition has been filed by the applicants invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.being aggrieved by order dated 21.11.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No.4/2011 setting aside the order of conviction recorded by JMFC, Chhindwara vide order dated 28.10.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.2620/2007.

The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that applicants were prosecuted before JMFC, Chhindwara on the report of respondent No.1.

After recording the evidence adduced by prosecution and defence, learned JMFC recorded the conviction of applicants under Section 323/34 of the IPC.

However, applicant Nos.2 and 3 were released on probation.

Being aggrieved thereby complainant/respondent No.1 filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Court.

The learned Sessions Judge, Chhindwara set aside the order passed by JMFC, hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a revision cannot be filed against the order passed under the Probation of Offenders Act.

An appeal is specifically provided under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

This point was also raised before the revisional Court, however, same has not been considered.

Even otherwise, the trial Court has the jurisdiction to release the applicants on probation, therefore, the revisional Court committed illegality in setting aside the order passed by the JMFC under the Probation of Offenders Act.

If the impugned order is allowed to be continued, it would amount to abuse of process of Court, therefore, the impugned order be set aside.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the order passed by revisional Court along with the judgment dated 28.10.2010 passed by the JMFC.

It reveals from a bare perusal of judgment dated 28.10.2010 that the applicants were released on probation by JMFC after exercising the jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

If anyone was aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the remedy of appeal is provided under Section 11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the Court, to which the appeal ordinary lie from the sentences of the former court.

This opportunity has not been extended not only to the accused but also to the prosecution.

Thus, the revisional Court committed illegality in setting aside the order passed by the trial Court.

Consequently, the petition is allowed.

Order dated 21.11.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No.4/2011 is hereby set aside.

Certified copy as per rules.

(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB