RASHEED AHMED Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the instant criminal revision filed under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C. the revisionist has challenged the validity of the judgment and order dtd. 5/11/2020, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Criminal Case No.11109 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.52 of 2018, under Sec. 13 of the Gambling Act, Police Station Kotwali Rudauli, District Faizabad, whereby the revisionist has been convicted for the aforesaid offence on the basis of his confession and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100.00 and to remain in custody till the rising of the Court, only to the extent that it denies the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the revisionist.

(2.) Sri. Amit Chaudhry, the learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has no criminal history and, therefore, he was entitled to be granted benefit of provisions of Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1958'). In that case the revisionist would be entitled to the benefit of Sec. 12 of the Act, 1958, which provides that a person found guilty of the offence and dealt with under the provisions of Sec. 3/4 of the Act, 1958 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that Sec. 361 Cr.P.C. provides that whether a court could have dealt with an accused person under the provisions of Sec. 360 Cr.P.C. or provisions of Act, 1958, but it has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so, whereas no reason has been recorded in the impugned order for denial of benefit of Sec. 4 of the Act, 1958 to the revisionist.