BASAVANTAPPA ALIAS BASAVANT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste, having made an application enclosing the date of birth certificate, by altering his date of birth, secured an appointment as a watchman in sri Venkateshwar High School, managed by harijana Girijana Seva Sangha, at sindhanur District, Raichur and when the same came to light, was prosecuted for offences under Sections 465, 471 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in C. C. No. 42 of 2002 [p. C. No. 14 of 2002) before the Chief judicial Magistrate Court, Bagalkot. By judgment dated 23. 10. 2007 of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Bagalkot, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 for offence punishable under Section 465 of the I. P. C. or in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 471 of the i. P. C. , the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months as also pay fine of Rs. 4,000 and in default in payment to pay the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. That order when carried in criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2007, was confirmed by order dated 7. 7. 2008 of the Fast Track court No. 11, Bagalkot. Hence, this criminal revision petition invoking Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr. P. C.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has since taken voluntary retirement and is presently aged 61 years and being in the evening of his life, with his character and antecedents, attendant circumstances, being impeccable, and the only offence committed was to change the date of birth in order to secure an appointment to eke out his livelihood coupled with the fact the petitioner has suffered criminal proceedings both before the Trial court and the Appellate Court, has substantially reformed himself and no useful purpose will be served by subjecting him to a jail life. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has since deposited Rs. 6,000 with the Trial Court, being the fine amount and that it is an eminently fit case for release of the petitioner on probation invoking Section 4 of the Probation of offenders Act, 1958.

(3.) LEARNED State Public Prosecutor for the respondent, per contra, contends that the petitioner is guilty of an offence which is against the society as also the Government, and hence not entitled to the benefit of the probation of Offenders Act, and that the orders of the Courts below being fully justified, do not call for interference.