DWARIKA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants/ accused have directed this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by by the judgment dated 23.1.2001 passed 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No.3/2000, whereby upholding the conviction of the applicant No.1 under Section 39 Electricity Act, and Section 332 and 353 of IPC and conviction of applicant No.2 under Section 332 and 353 of IPC and the applicant No.1 is directed to undergo for RI six months with fine of Rs.500/- in first count while both the applciants have been directed to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 332 of IPC and three months RI with fine of Rs.300/- under Section 353 of IPC with a direction to run all the sentence concurrently.

(2.) THE applicants' counsel without assailing any findings of the impugned judgment holding the aforesaid conviction of the applicants has made his limited submission to reduce their awarded jail sentence up to the period for which they have already undergone for 19 days and 18 days respectively, as such the applicant No.1 Dwarka suffered the judicial custody of one day and both the applicants suffered the awarded jail sentence between 23.1.2001 to 2 9.2.2001, by enhancing the amount of fine under the discretion of the Court. In such premises it was argued by the counsel that matter is pending since long, during this period the applicants suffered the mental agony of the case and simultaneously had also given their appearance during pendency of trial in the trial Court, in pendency of appeal before such Court and they also appearing before this Court in the present matter. Except the present matter there is no criminal antecedents and in such premises they appear to be first offenders. So considering all these circumstances, by allowing the aforesaid prayer for reduction of the jail sentence of the applicants by enhancing the amount of fine this revision be disposed of accordingly. 2. As the applicants have made their limited prayer for reduction of the jail sentence, hence mentioning of entire facts of the case does not appear to be necessary and on arising the occasion the same could be taken into consideration from the impugned judgments of the courts below in which the same are stated in the elaborate manner. In such premises the entire facts of the care are not being mentioned in the present order.

(3.) LOOKING to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the applicants, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders Act to them. Accordingly, it is held that the applicants are not entitled for extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.