HARISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant/ accused has directed this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by by the judgment dated 16.3.2002 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2002, whereby upholding his conviction awarded by the trial Court under Section 324 and 452 of IPC, he has been punished for RI six months with fine of Rs.200/-, in earlier section while RI seven months with fine of Rs.250/- in later, with stipulation of default in depositing the fine amount.

(2.) THE applicant's counsel without assailing any findings of the impugned judgment holding the aforesaid conviction of the applicant has made his limited submission to reduce the awarded jail sentence up to the period for which he has already undergone i. e. 11 days between 16.3.2002 to 26.3.2002 by enhancing the amount of fine under the discretion of the Court. In support of such contention it was argued by the counsel that matter is pending since long, during this period the applicant suffered the mental agony of the case and simultaneously had also given his appearance during pendency of trial in the trial Court, in pendency of appeal before such Court and he is also appearing before this Court in the present matter. Except the present matter there is no criminal antecedents and in such premises he appears to be first offender. So considering all these circumstances, by allowing the aforesaid prayer for reduction of the jail sentence of the applicant by enhancing the amount of fine this revision be disposed of accordingly.

(3.) LOOKING to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the applicant, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders Act to him. Accordingly, it is held that the applicant is not entitled for extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.