MOOL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice for final disposal is accepted by the learned Public Prosecutor. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition is finally heard and decided at the admission stage.

(2.) The petitioners Mool Singh, Ladhu Singh and Harji Singh were convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 447, 325/149, 323/149, 324/149 IPC and petitioner Mithu Singh was convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 447, 325/149, 323/149, 324 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Asind, district Bhilwara ( for short, the trial Court hereinafter) vide judgment and order dated 30-4-2004 passed in Criminal Case No. 345/1995 and each of the petitioners Mool Singh, Ladu Singh and Harji Singh were sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo 15 days imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC; one month's simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 447 IPC; one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's imprisonment for the offence under Section 325/149 IPC; one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo 15 days imprisonment for the offence under Section 323/149 IPC; and six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's imprisonment for the offence under Section 324/149 IPC. Petitioner Mithu Singh was sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo 15 days imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC; one month's simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 447 IPC; one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's imprisonment for the offence under Section 325/149 IPC; one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo 15 days imprisonment for the offence under Section 323/149 IPC; and six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Against the judgment and order dated 30-4-2004 passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the petitioners, the petitioners filed appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, district Bhilwara (for short, the Appellate Court hereinafter) and the Appellate Court, vide judgment and order impugned dated 7-4-2006, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgments and orders impugned, the petitioners have filed the instant criminal revision.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not challenge their conviction; however, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined the arguments only on the point of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the courts below fell in error in not considering the case of the petitioners under Section 360 Cr.P.C. or under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Learned counsel submits that no reasons, much less special reasons for not considering the case of the petitioners under Section 360 Cr.P.C. has been assigned either by the trial Court or by the Appellate Court, which, according to the learned counsel, is mandatory in nature in view of the provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C.