ISHAK & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to assail the finding of the learned trial Court on merits. He merely submits that while convicting the appellants the learned trial Court failed to consider is to whether the appellants are entitled to be released on Probation or not. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case & the principle laid down in the case reported in 1979 Supreme Court 934, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the learned trial Court could have granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that appellants No. 1, 2, 4 and 10 are Government servants and they would loose the job if their conviction is maintained. So a direction may be issued that their services shall not be affected in case they are found guilty.

(2.) After going through the entire record and the evidence available, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has considered the evidence at length and did not misread the evidence. As said earlier that the counsel for the appellants does not want to assail the finding on merit under these circumstance there is no option except to maintain the finding recorded by the trial Court. In view of these circumstances, the conviction of the appellants is, therefore, maintained but instead of passing any sentence. I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be released on Probation and they shall be released on Probation.

(3.) The appellants are therefore, directed to appear before Addl. Sessions Judge. Bundi within two months who will release the appellants after due admonition. I do not deem it proper to direct the appellants to furnish the bonds in the circumstances of the case. I also deem it fit that in the peculiar circumstances of the case the conviction should not affect the service carrier of appellants No. 1, 2, 4 and 10. Similar view has been taken in the case of Rajveer Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1985 Cr. L.R. (SC) 285 . Consequently, this appeal is therefore, partly allowed.