BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenges the judgment dated 31-5- 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. The Sessions Judge has granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for brevity'the Act to the petitioner-accused while deciding the appeal filed against the judgment and sentence order dated 20-3-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib in Police Challan No. 17 dated 24-1-1994 pertaining to FIR No. 81 dated 6-11-1992 registered under Sections 332/358/148/149 IPC P. S. Bassi Pathana.

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner alongwith other was convicted of offences punishable under Section 332, IPC read with Sections 149 and 148 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- along with one Gurdeep Singh. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 332. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner is working as an S.P.O. in Punjab police arid has been selected for appointment as constable. After conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. Fatehgarh Sahib, who has extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Act on the principal ground that the petitioner is not a previous convict and he is already facing agony of protracted trial since the year 1992. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 31-5-2003 reads as under :

(3.) Mr. R. N. Moudgil, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the basic object of granting benefit of Section 4 of the Act to a convict is to remove his disqualification which flows from conviction. According to the learned counsel, the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error in law by retaining the imposition of fine as sentence because it would result into a disqualification. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the case of Bhagwan v. The State of Haryana (1985) 87 Pun LR 649 and Court of its own motion v. Ram Lubhaya ILR (1985) 1 Punj and Har 428 .