KAILASH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants/ accused have directed this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by by the judgment dated 30.5.2002 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Criminal Appeal No.55/2002, whereby modifying the judgment dated 11.2.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Burhanpur in Criminal Case No.283/1988 convicting and sentencing each of the applicants under Section 325/34, 323/34 (three counts), 324/34 and 294 of IPC for RI one year with fine of Rs.500/- in first count RI three months with fine of Rs.100/- (three times) in second count, RI for four months with fine of 100/- in third count while with fine of Rs.100/- in last count with stipulation of jail sentence in default of depositing the fine amount has been modified and by upholding their conviction and sentence under Section 325/34, 323/34 (three counts) and 294 of IPC they have been acquitted from the charge of Section 324/34 of IPC. All the jail sentence have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE applicants' counsel without assailing any findings of the impugned judgment holding the aforesaid conviction of the applicants has made his limited submission to reduce their awarded jail sentence up to the period for which they have already undergone for 12 days between 30.5.2002 to 10.6.2002, by enhancing the amount of fine under the discretion of the Court. In such premises it was argued by the counsel that matter is pending since long, during this period the applicants suffered the mental agony of the case and simultaneously had also given their appearance during pendency of trial in the trial Court, in pendency of appeal before such Court and they also appearing before this Court in the present matter. Except the present matter there is no criminal antecedents and in such premises they appear to be first offenders. So considering all these circumstances, by allowing the aforesaid prayer for reduction of the jail sentence of the applicants 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 applicants, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders Act to them. Accordingly, it is held that the applicants are not entitled for extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.