DARAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were convicted by the trial court of the offences under Sections 323, 341, 448 and 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - each. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction for the aforesaid offences but instead of awarding sentence of any kind to them at that stage directed their release on probation for two years for being of good conduct, to keep peace and not to repeat similar offences in future during the said period of probation. The amount of fine was directed to be appropriated towards cost of litigation.

(2.) THE only contention of the petitioners in this petition is that since they happen to be in the employment of a factory they are likely to be thrown out of employment if it is not mentioned in the order that the conviction recorded against them shall not come in the way of their employment. In support of such contention the learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following cases - -1985 Cr.L.R.(SC) 285, Rajveer v. State of Haryana 1986 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 314, Pokhar v. State of Raj. 1990 SCC (Suppl.) 61, Ram Raj Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P.

(3.) IN the present case the relevant facts are that the petitioners had already been dismissed from service in the factory and their entry into the factory premises had been prohibited. It was alleged that on 20.8.1980 at about 12 O'clock, after the rest interval, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of tres -passing into the factory premises and causing hurt to the Officers working there and in prosecution of the said common object of the unlawful assembly they made entry into the factory premises despite a protest by Mardan Singh and Panchanand Jamadars and after effecting their entry into the factory premises they caught hold of factory Manager Shri Ramlal Gupta and belaboured him with iron rod and fists and kicks. The facts of the case clearly show that it was a preplanned act of the petitioners. They had already been dismissed from the employment in the factory but despite protest from the Jamadars of the factory tres -passed into the factory premises and used criminal force against the factory Manager. The offence was committed without any just excuse or provocation. If leniency in such cases of use of criminal force is shown by this Court, it is likely to convey wrong message to the persons concerned. It is also likely that a direction of the nature demanded by the petitioners would encourage indiscipline, lawlessness and repetition of such offences by unruly elements in the industrial areas and thus would adversely affect the growth of commerce and industry. For these reasons, I do not think that it is a fit case wherein the benefit of the proposition laid down in the cases cited above should be extended to the petitioners.