RANJIT PAUL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 2000.00- in default R. I. for six months by the learned Special Rail-Nay Magistrate, Jullundur vide his order dated 2. 6. 1981. The appeal was carried to the Court of Session where it substantially failed in as much as that the sentence of imprisonment was set aside and the petitioner was given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and it was directed that the petitioner shall furnish personal bond with one surety of the amount of Rs. 2000/for a period of one year for keeping peace and of good behavior. He was further directed to pay Rs. 500/- towards the costs of litigation: The petitioner bas come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) I have gone through the judgment and the evidence in the case Nothing serious has been brought out to show any irregularity or illegality in the orders of the Courts below. I do not find any material to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts. How ever, Mr. G.s. Dhillon, learned counsel for the petitioner has his fears that this conviction may not haunt the petitioner with evil consequences.

(3.) Since the petitioner has been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act,1958 section 12 of the aforesaid Act absolves the offender of all the disqualifications which are attached to a conviction. Section 12 of the Act reads as under: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction of an offence under such law: Section 12 of the aforesaid Act absolves the off under of all the disqualifications which are attached to a conviction. Section 12 of the Act reads as under Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.' I am, therefore, of the opinion that the fears of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not well founded. This revision, thus, stands disposed of. Revision dismissed