NISAR AHMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application was filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 11.11.2009 passed by this Court. vide order dated 11.11.2009, this Court had dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 25.9.2009 whereby the learned Trial Court had granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused non-petitioners, namely Shakeel Mohammad, Kadir Mohammad and Abdul Razzak.

(2.) According to the petitioner in the order dated 11.11.2009, this Court had noted the fact that since there was no previous conviction of the accused non-petitioners, they were rightly granted the benefit of section 3 of the Act. However, according to the petitioner, the accused non-petitioners are "habitual offenders" against whom a large number of criminal cases are pending. Moreover, according to the petitioner a case for offence under sections 323 and 341. I.P.C. is still pending before the A.C.J.M. (Jr. Division) No. 8, Jaipur City Jaipur. Furthermore, the accused non-petitioners were accused in the case of communal rights which had occurred in Jaipur. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the benefit of probation should not have been granted to the accused non-petitioners.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. S.R. Surana, the learned Counsel for the accused non-petitioners, has vehemently pleaded that he has filed an application, wherein he has claimed that against the accused non-petitioners false facts have been narrated before this Court. According to him, in the communal rights case, the accused non-petitioners were acquitted as far back as 1994. But for the case pending before the A.C.J.M. (Jr. Division) No. 8 Jaipur City, Jaipur, there are no other cases which are pending against accused non-petitioners. The petitioner is unjustified in claiming that "there are large number of criminal cases pending against the accused non-petitioners." He has further contended that the order dated 11.11.2009 had clearly noted the fact that since there was no previous conviction recorded against accused non-petitioners, they were rightly granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Lastly, he has vehemently contended that since false statements have been made by the petitioner. the petitioner should be directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 50.000/- to the accused non-petitioners.