Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. - (1.) BY way of this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the complainant -petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hindaun City (District Karauli) in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2011 whereby the learned Appellate Court during the course of National Lok Adalat extended benefit of probation to the accused -respondents and set aside the order of sentence dated 09.07.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hindaun City in Criminal Case No. 82/2009 whereby learned trial Court after convicting the respondents for offences under Sections 323 and 452 IPC, setenced each of them for rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - for offence under Section 323 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 3,000/ - for offence under Section 452 IPC.
(2.) THE moot question to be considered and decided in this petition is whether benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") can be extended to an accused against whom another FIR for some offence has been registered or who has been convicted for an offence in another case and to whom such benefit has already been extended. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the accused -respondents alongwith to co -accused faced trial for offences under Sections 323, 354 and 452 IPC in Criminal Case No. 82/2009 and learned trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hindaun City (District Karauli) vide judgment dated 09.07.2010 convicted the respondents for offences under Sections 323 and 452 IPC and sentenced each of them as already stated. Learned trial Court declined to grant benefit of probation to the respondents by the reason that against them another FIR was said to have been registered and respondent -Shri Raj Kumar has already been convicted in a case. It was also observed by the learned trial Court that the respondents have been found guilty of inflicting injuries to a woman after making forced entry in her house. Respondents challenged the judgment and order of the trial Court by way of Criminal Appeal No. 14/2011 and learned appellate Court during the course of National Lok Adalat while affirming and maintaining the conviction of the respondents extended benefit of Section 4 of the Act to them with the condition that each of them would deposit Rs. 5,000/ - as prosecution expenses under Section 5 of the Act. Dissatisfied with the grant of benefit of probation to the respondents, Smt. Munni Devi complainant is before this Court by way of this petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.11.2013 whereby learned appellate Court granted benefit of probation to the respondents.
(3.) IT is not in dispute that accused -respondent -Shri Raj Kumar alongwith two other accused faced trial in another Criminal Case No. 448/1999 for offences under Sections 323, 324,325 read with Section 34 IPC and learned trial Court i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindauncity in that case vide judgment dated 17.01.2004 convicted the respondent -Shri Raj Kumar for offences under Sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC and while refusing to extend benefit of probation to him awarded sentence of simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 300/ - for offence under Section 323, simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/ - for offence under Section 324 IPC and simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - for offence under Section 325 IPC. The judgment and order dated 17.01.2004 was challenged by the respondent -Shri Raj Kumar by way of Criminal Appeal No. 4/2004 and learned appellate Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Hindauncity vide judgment and order dated 02.03.2005 partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and while convicting him for offences under Sections 323 and 325/34 IPC extended benefit of probation and imposed upon him Rs. 1,500/ - as prosecution expenses under Section 5 of the Act. The order dated 02.03.2005 was challenged by the complainant of that case Shri Jay Devi by way of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 429/2005 before this Court and the learned Single Bench vide order dated 25.07.2007 dismissed the revision petition with observation that no previous conviction is alleged against the respondent. This fact has also not been disputed on behalf of the respondents that against both of them another FIR has been registered as mentioned in the judgment and order dated 09.07.2010 passed by the trial Court in the present case. It is to be noted that although respondents were duly served and power was also filed on their behalf, but on the date of hearing i.e. 06.08.2015 no one appeared before the Court on behalf of them.;