Ram Ratan vs State of M.P.

Uma Nath Singh, J.—Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Shri Jain submits that once the applicant has been acquitted of offence u/s 332, IPC, he becomes entitled to be acquitted also of offence u/s 353, IPC, Mr. Jain, further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to get benefit of release on probation of good conduct u/s 360, Cr.PC.

Smt. Sharma, appearing for the State submits that this Court in criminal revision should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and as the findings of the Courts below is categorical that the applicant caused assault with shoe, to the complainant, a public servant, he should not be considered for the benefit of release on probation.

On due consideration of rival submissions, I am of the considered view that the submissions of Mr. Jain have no force. The learned Courts below have recorded acquittal of offence u/s 332, IPC on the ground that the applicant did not cause hurt voluntarily and not for the reason that the complainant was not a public servant, therefore, the conviction of the applicant recorded u/s 353, IPC does not suffer from any illegality to necessitate interference of this Court in criminal revision. Further as the applicant assaulted the complainant, a public servant with shoe to deter him from discharge of his duties, he is not entitled to be considered for release on probation of good conduct as the Court has to consider the age, character, or antecedents and the circumstances in which the offence was committed for release on probation u/s 360, Cr.PC.

Thus, the criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed.