Kuldeep Sharma vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Brij Kishore Dubey, J.—Vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15/02/2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 990/2004 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior, the petitioner herein/accused was convicted under Sections 324 and 341 of IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence u/s 324 of IPC and only fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence u/s 341 of IPC respectively, with default clause. Being aggrieved thereof, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner. The Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment dated 20/04/2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 152/11 affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence u/s 341 of IPC, so also the judgment of conviction u/s 324 of IPC, however, modified the sentence and instead of sentencing him, it was directed that the petitioner herein/accused shall be released on probation for good conduct u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and further directed to pay compensation to the injured, P.W. 1, Priyanka Dubey u/s 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Being aggrieved therefore, this Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C., is preferred by the petitioner herein/accused. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge the finding of conviction and the order of sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned Appellate Court. However, he prays that the petitioner herein is a practising Advocate and, therefore, a direction may be issued to the effect that the conviction recorded in the present case should not affect his profession and future career. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the cases of Rajbir Vs. State of Haryana, , Satyanarayan Vs. State of M.P., Yusufkhan Vs. State of M.P., , Santosh Vs. State of M.P., and order dated 31/03/2011 passed in Cr. Revision No. 159/2011 (Bholaram and another Vs. State of M.P.,).

Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment, however, he does not dispute the judgments/orders referred to hereinabove.

The facts of the case have been detailed in the impugned judgment by the learned Courts below, therefore, this Court does not want to repeat the same overall again.

Learned Appellate Court and the learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record found guilt of the petitioner. In view of the reasons assigned by the learned Courts below for convicting the petitioner to be trustworthy, this Court does not want to deviate from the same.

As before this Court, the finding of conviction and the order of sentence recorded by the learned Courts against the petitioner have not been challenged by the petitioner, hence, the aforesaid findings stands affirmed.

Admittedly, the petitioner is a practising Advocate and aged about 30 years by now. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents, therefore, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the conviction of the petitioner will not affect his profession and future career in any manner [Relied upon: Rajbir (supra), Satyanarayan (supra), Yusufkhan (supra), Santosh (supra) and Bholaram and another

(supra)].

With the aforesaid modification, this revision petition is disposed of finally. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.