KOUSHAL PATEL 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 12.6.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Satna in Criminal Appeal No.65/2002, whereby upholding his conviction awarded by the trial Court under Section 498-A of IPC, he has been punished for RI one year with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of depositing the fine amount for further one month RI.

(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. 17 days between 12.6.2002 to 28.6.2002 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 2 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. 2. As the applicant has made his limited prayer for reduction of the jail sentence, hence mentioning of entire facts of the case does not appear to be necessary and on arising the occasion the same could be taken into consideration from the impugned judgments of the court below in which the same are stated in the elaborate manner. In such premises the entire facts of the care are not being mentioned in the present order.

(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.