MANGTU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner to extend the time for submitting bail bonds in compliance to the direction of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Ajmer vide his judgment dated June 6. 1989, by which, the conviction of the petitioner under section 324, IPC was maintained, but he was given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(2.) The facts for the present petition are that the petitioner was tried in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 895/79. The learned Magistrate, after the completion of the trial, held the petitioner guilty for the offence under section 324, IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months and to a fine of Rs. 200/-, vide judgment dated April 9, 1983. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 89/85, though the learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the appeal number was 98/85 and in the order, of the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 27th March, 1991, the appeal number 89/85 has been wrongly mentioned. The appeal was, decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on June 16, 1989 and it was allowed in part. TM conviction of the petitioner under section 324, IPC was maintained, but instead of sentencing him for the imprisonment at once, he was given benefit of probation with direction to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ajmer. One month time was granted for furnishing bail bonds.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner could not furnish the requisite bail bonds in time. He moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 for extension of the time for furnishing the requisite bail bonds. In the said application he gave out that he was not intimated by his lawyer that, he, was required, to furnish bail bonds within a. period of one month, It was further given out that he is in Service of Railway Department, and as such, be will suffer irreparable lose, if he is deprived the benefit of probation on the ground of non-submitting requisit bail bonds in time. However, this petition was rejected by the learned Additional Session Judge, vide his order dated March 27, 1991 have been given out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the date of rejection of the said application, the petitioner has been taken into custody to serve out the sentence of imprisonment. Under these circumstances, the present petitioner under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has, been filed with a prayer to extend the time for furnishing the bail bonds in compliance with the aforesaid direction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has again submitted before me that the petitioner could not file the requisite bail bonds in time as there was a communication gap between him and his lawyer. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in govetliment service, i.e. Railway Establishment, and in case he does not get benefit of probation, it may have serious affect on his service also.