KULDEEP SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15/02/2011 passed in Criminal Case No.990/2004 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior, the petitioner herein/accused was convicted under Sections 324 and 341 of IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/ for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and only fine of Rs.300/ for the offence under Section 341 of IPC respectively, with default clause. Being aggrieved thereof, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner. The Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment dated 20/04/2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.152/11 affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 341 of IPC, so also the judgment of conviction under Section 324 of IPC, however, modified the sentence and instead of sentencing him, it was directed that the petitioner herein/accused shall be released on probation for good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and further directed to pay compensation to the injured, P.W.1, Priyanka Dubey under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Being aggrieved therefore, this Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.,is preferred by the petitioner herein/accused.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge the finding of conviction and the order of sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned Appellate Court. However, he prays that the petitioner herein is a practising Advocate and, therefore, a direction may be issued to the effect that the conviction recorded in the present case should not affect his profession and future career. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the cases of Rajbir Vs. State of Haryana, 1985 SCC(Cri) 445, Satyanarayan Vs. State of M.P., 2003 1 MPHT 39, Yusufkhan Vs. State of M.P., 2003 1 MPHT 42, Santosh Vs. State of M.P., 2010 3 MPHT 55 and order dated 31/03/2011 passed in Cr. Revision No.159/2011 (Bholaram and another Vs. State of M.P.,).

(3.) Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment, however, he does not dispute the judgments/orders referred to hereinabove.