Kamlendra Kumar Pandey vs Union Of India

Heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Criminal Appeal

No.28(3)/2009, whereby learned Sessions judge dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, upheld the judgment dated 16.09.2009, passed by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Commandant 171 BN CRPF, Dibrugarh, Assam, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 10(e) &

(P) of CRPF Act, 1949 and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court.

The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner was working as a cook in CRPF. On 29.07.2009, by an order the petitioner was asked to

proceed to A/171 BN CRPF, but instead of proceeding as per direction, the petitioner filed an application stating that if anything happens to him during

his movement, the responsibility will lie on the Officers of the 171 BN CRPF.Â

On the basis of the said application of the petitioner which allegedly demonstrated gross in-subordination and insolence to superior officers, a

complaint was lodged against the petitioner and eventually, he was prosecuted for offence under Section 7(e) I (P) of the CRPF Act, 1949.Â

The petitioner did not plead guilty of the charges leveled against him, however, by filing a written statement he stated that he was suffering from

ailment and was scheduled to see doctor on 30.07.2009. He tried to meet the senior officers to appraise his inconvenience, but remained

unsuccessful and as such, in order to inform the authority about the condition of his health, he wrote the application without any malice or intention to

show insubordination to the seniors. The application written by the petitioner was not disputed.Â

Learned trial Court having considered the evidence brought on record, came to the finding that the offence under Section 10(e) was established and

accordingly convicted him and awarded sentence as indicated above.

Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order,

dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.

Having gone through the evidence and materials brought on record, I find that both the Courts below, on appreciation of the evidence rightly

reached the concurrent finding, that the offence under Section 10(e) of CRPF Act had been proved against the petitioner beyond doubt and as such, in

my considered view, the impugned judgment has not suffered from any illegality or irregularity requiring interference, so far the conviction of the

petitioner is concerned.Â

However, having considered the facts and circumstance under which the offence was committed by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered

opinion, that cause of justice would be best served, if the petitioner is released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders

Act.

Learned CJM cum Commandant shall release the petitioner after due admonition in terms of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is

made clear, that the petitioner shall be entitled to the protection provided by Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

With the above modification in the impugned judgment, the revision petition is partly allowed.

Send down the LCR.