MALKIYAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition Under Section 401, Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has sustained the conviction of accused Malkiyat Singh Under Section 54(a), (c) and (d) of Excise Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the accused -petitioner, before me, Mr. Vyas has not pressed the revision petition on merits. He submits only that benefit of Section 360, Cr. P.C. should be given to the accused as he is below 21 years of age and was never convicted previously. For that he relied on 1978 Rajasthan Criminal Cases 224 and 1981 Rajasthan Criminal Cases 308.

(3.) WHEN learned Counsel for the accused petitioner has not pressed the petition on merits, it is not necessary to narrate the prosecution case and discuss the evidence for conviction or acquittal. It is only to be seen now whether benefit of Section 360 of Cr. P.C. be given to the accused petitioner or not. The fact is not in dispute that accused petitioner is below 21 years of age and never convicted for any offence before convicting for this offence. In Hazari v. State of Rajasthan 1978 Rajasthan Criminal Cases 224 the issue was considered whether the accused can be released Under Section 360, Cr.P.C. In that case, this Court has considered the intention of legislature after insertion of Section 360, Cr.P.C. in new Cr.P.C, 1973 and the view taken was that in view of the intention of legislature after insertion of Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C., 1973, it does not appear unreasonable to extend the benefit of Section 360, Cr.P.C. to the accused petitioner. In case of Magh Singh v. State of Rajasthan Rajasthan Criminal Cases Volume 6, 1981 Page, 308 again the issue was considered whether benefit of provisions of Section 360, Cr.P.C. or Probation of Offenders Act should be given to the accused or not. Again considering the case of Hazari (Supra) and the decision of Their Lordships in Vishnu Deo, the view was taken that having regard to the character and age of the accused - petitioner, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by Section 360, Cr.P.C. No good reason has been shown by the learned Public Prosecutor as to why the accused petitioner should not be given Benefit Under Section 360 of Cr.P.C.