Dharampal vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

Notice to the State on the quantum of sentence only.

On the asking of the Court Mr. S.N. Gaur, DAG Haryana, accepts notice.

This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 20.2.1998, passed by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak, who maintained the conviction of the petitioner u/s 419/420/468/471 IPC.

The brief facts of the case are that on 11.3.1989, at 9 a.m., a Flying Squad headed by P.W. 1 B.K. Sharma, checked the bus bearing registration No. HRU 2739 of Delhi Depot at Haryana Tax Barier. During the course of checking, one passenger was found travelling without ticket. He disclosed his name as Raja Ram and further claimed that he was in possession of a bus pass. On checking his pass, on the name of Raja Ram, many overcuttings were detected, P.W. 1 B.K. Sharma became suspicious and made repeated enquiries from that person. At the first instance, that person disclosed his name as Raja Ram but on further enquiry, he disclosed his name as Dharampal s/o Sahi Ram. Thus, the main allegations of the prosecution are that the petitioner was travelling on a bogus bus pass and he had tampered with the pass for his advantage.

The trial court sentenced the petitioner to the maximum sentence of one year and he was also directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 1,500/ on different counts. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, the petitioner filed an appeal before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak, who dismissed the appeal.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the first offender. He has suffered the agony of criminal proceedings since 1989. The sentence is also not very long and the trial court as well as the first appellate court had not advanced cogent special reasons for disallowing the probation to the petitioner.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, while declining the benefit of probation to the petitioner, had stated in the following terms :

"In this regard it may be mentioned that taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, manner of cheating, and forgery of bogus bus passes and keeping in view the fact that tendency and frequency of such forgery and cheating have been tremendously increasing day by day which need to be curbed. That being so, to my mind, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of probation under Section 360, Cr.P.C. or the Probation of Offenders Act in the obtaining circumstances of the case."

The reasons which have been advanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are not cogent. The Courts below have not taken into consideration that the petitioner is a first offender and that he has suffered the agony of criminal proceedings since 1989. The object of the law is not only to punish an offender but also to reclaim him. No useful purpose will be served to the State or to the society, if the petitioner is sent to jail lest he may become a hardened criminal.

Resultantly, I extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner for a period of one year provided he furnishes a bail bound in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Rohtak. During the course of probation, the petitioner shall not commit any offence and be of good behaviour. In case, he violates any terms of the bound it will be open for the court State to call upon the petitioner to serve the sentence. The petitioner shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/ by way of cost of litigation, which shall go to the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of Rs. 1,500/ have already been deposited by the petitioner by way of fine and this amount should be adjusted toward costs of litigation. JUDGMENTed accordingly. The petitioner shall deposit a further sum of Rs. 500/ by way of costs of litigation before the C.J.M. along with the bail bond/surety bond. Copy dasti and one copy be sent to C.J.M., Rohtak, for compliance.