IN RE : SAMSUDEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conviction of the Petitioner is solely based on the concurrent findings of fact by the two Courts below. There is no illegality vitiating the judgments of the two courts. It has been eloquently pleaded by Mr. Sriramulu that his client is a first offender. The entire amount of the bushes which the Petitioner sold was valued at Rs. 25/ - nearly, so that he pleads that the Petitioner may be given a chance to turn a new leaf in his life, by applying the salutary provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, (Act 20 of 1956). Under Sec. 4(1) of the said Act, I direct the Petitioner to be released on his entering into a bond for Rs. 500/ - with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Sub Magistrate III, Madurai, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behavior. I will add this. In these days of widespread and mounting unemployment, I do not want to perpetually outlaw the Petitioner from employment. Under Sec. 5, 12 of the Central Act 20 of 1956, I direct that the disqualification attaching to the Petitioner would not operate to his detriment or his continued employment.

(2.) The revision case is dismissed.