PARMAR ASHOK KUMAR GIRDHARLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this revision application u/s. 397 (1) r/w. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 22. 01. 1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No. 18/1998, whereby, the said appeal was partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 27. 02. 1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 3751/1994 by the learned C. J. M. , Mehsana was confirmed.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner and respondent no. 2 were married to each other. On 25. 06. 1994 respondent no. 2 filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and her in-laws for offences punishable u/s. 498 (A), 323, 504, 506 (2) and 114 IPC. In connection with the said complaint, the petitioner and other accused persons were arrested and ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against them before the concerned Magistrate Court and the case was numbered as Criminal Case No. 3751/1994. In the said Criminal Case, the petitioner and other accused persons were convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 498 (A), 323, 506 (2) and 114 IPC. 2. 1 Against the said order, the petitioner and other accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No. 18/1998 before the Sessions Court, Mehsana. The said appeal came to be partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 19. 01. 1999, whereby, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court was confirmed and the same was quashed and set aside qua the other accused persons. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this is an appropriate case in which the discretion under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 could be exercised in favour of the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is an employee of a nationalized Bank holding a senior managerial post and in view of the conviction recorded against him, he may lose his job. He has further submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the petitioner may be granted the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashutosh Kumar Manoj v. State of Bihar reported in 2002 (3) S. C. C. 88 and Jamal Haq v. State of Tripura reported in 2006 (9) S. C. C. 757, wherein, the benefit of probation have been granted to the accused.