LAWS(KAR)-1992-9-18

K GANGOJI RAO SALANKE Vs. STATE

Decided On September 24, 1992
K.GANGOJI RAO SOLANKI Appellant
V/S
STATE BY RURAL POLICE, MANDYAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner who was the accused in the trial court under sections 397 and 401, cr, p.c. against the order dated 7-2-1990 passed by the sessions judge, mandya, in criminal appeal no. 18 of 1989 partly allowing it and modifying the order dated 17-3-1989 passed by the munsiff and j.m.f.c, mandya, in c.c. no. 2007 of 1983.

(2.) i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned governmentpleader for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.

(3.) the petitioner was convicted in this case under section 255(2), cr. P.c. for theoffences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304-a, ipc and he was sentenced to undergo s.i. for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under section 337, ipc and r.i. for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 304-a, ipc and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the order of the principal munsiff and j.m.f.c, mandya, dated 28-7-1987. The petitioner preferred criminal appeal no. 38 of 1987 in the court of the sessions judge, mandya, and the learned sessions judge, mandya, dismissed it on 26-6-1988. The petitioner was aggrieved by the orders of the courts below and, therefore, he preferred a criminal revision petition at criminal revision petition no. 319 of 1988 in this court and this court by its order confirmed the order of conviction. But, so far as the order of sentencing the petitioner was concerned, it was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial magistrate with a direction to consider the application of the provision of the probation of offenders act to the case of the petitioner, if necessary, after calling a report from the probation officer concerned and dispose of the case in accordance with law. After the matter was remanded to the trial court, the j.m.f.c., mandya, called for a report of the probation officer who submitted his report. After perusing the report and also hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the learned j.m.f.c. held that looking to the gravity and the nature of the offence and the act of the accused- petitioner, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the probation of offenders act. The learned j.m.f.c. sentenced him to undergo s.i. for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under section 337, ipc and r.i. for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 304-a, ipc and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. The petitioner was aggrieved by this order. So, he preferred criminal appeal no. 18 of 1989 in the court of the sessions judge, mandya, and the learned sessions judge, mandya, after hearing both sides, allowed the appeal in part and sentenced the petitioner to undergo s.i, for two months for the offence punishable under section 337, ipc and he has further sentenced the petitioner to undergo s.i. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to undergo s.i. for 6 months for the offence punishable under section 304-a, ipc. He has ordered the sentences to run concurrently. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders of both the courts below for not extending the benefit of the probation of offenders act to him, has preferred this petition. So far as the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 337 and 304-a, ipc are concerned, they have been confirmed by the order of this court in criminal revision petition no. 319 of 1988. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner for the said offences is not liable to be disturbed.