SHIV CHARAN & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 24.1.1990 of the Addl. Sess. Judge No. 2, Kota in Sess. case No. 84/86, whereby each of the appellants has been convicted under Sec. 323, IPC, and instead of sentencing them, they were granted probation under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. for keeping peace for a period of one year.

(2.) Shri Rajawat at very outset, stated that though the appellants have been granted benefit of probation but the appellants have, however, pressed the appeal because appellant No. 1-Shivcharan is in Government service and appellant No. 2 Virendra Singh is his young son likely to be employed as and when occasion so arises, and if their conviction is maintained, they would be put to a loss in service , career. Therefore, only contention on behalf of the appellants is that it may be clarified that the service of appellant No. 1 Shivcharan may not be adversely affected and the conviction may not come as a bar while getting employment to the appellant No. 2 Virendra Singh, if the conviction is maintained. To the above submissions, the learned Pu'dic Prosecutor has nothing to say contrary.

(3.) In Rajbir Vs. State of Haryana, (AIR 1985 SC p. 1278) the Apex Court while maintaining the conviction under Sec. 323, Penal Code and granting the benefit of probation to the accused, observed as under :