ARUN MADAN,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against the impugned -order dated 5 -4 -1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota in Criminal Case No. 5/90 whereby the said Appellate Court had upheld the order of the learned CJM Kota dated 27 -7 -1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 160/79 whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under: Under Section 3/7 of the EC Act : 3 months S.I. and fine of Rs. 2000/ - in default, 2 months S.I. Under Section 3/9 of the EC Act : 1 month S.I. and fine of Rs. 500/ - in default, 1 month S.I.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that complaint was filed against the petitioner by the complainant -Enforcement Inspector on 21 -2 -1978 alleging that in the distribution register the accused -petitioner had made forged entries in violation of the conditions of the licence for running the fair price shop. On the basis of the said complaint, the statements of the witnesses were recorded before the learned CJM Kota. The trial Court vide its impugned -order dated 27 -7 -1998 held the petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced the accused -petitioner as aforesaid. In appeal, the said order of the trial Court was upheld by the First Appellate Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota vide order dated 5 -4,1999 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5/90. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has come up before this Court by way of the present revision petition. I have heard Mr. Ashok, the petitioner's son who sought permission of this Court to argue and represent the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the impugned orders of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Prima -facie, I find no justification for interfering with the concurrent findings of the Courts below since the scope as regards exercise of revisional powers of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. is very limited to prevent abuse of process of Court of any illegality which in the instant case has not happened. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is 65 years of age being the first offender and not the previous convict as well as the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of offenders Act, 1958 as well as Section 360(3), Cr.P.C, I partly allow this petition by directed that instead of undergoing the sentence as awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner be extended the benefit of probation with regard to the aforesaid provisions.
(3.) AS a result of above discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or any jurisdiction error in the impugned -order/judgment of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. However, I do modify the irnpugned -orders dated 27.71998 and 5.4.1999 to the following effect:;