HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2892 of 1987 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rahul Asthana, learned Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 30.10.1987 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Session trial no. 79 of 1987, convicting and sentencing the applicants 2.5 years R.I. and fine Rs.500/- and in default of fine further 6 months R.I. u/s 452 IPC, 2 years R.I. u/s 324/34 IPC and 1 month R.I. u/s 323/34 IPC. All sentences run concurrently to each. Probation for good conduct for 3 years on P.B. Rs.2000/- each along with two sureties each in the like amount. However, the learned trial Court considering the fact the accused persons being agriculturists granted them the benefit of good behavior and directed them to observe peace and be of a good character for a period of three years subject to their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.2,000/- each alongwith two sureties each in like amount, with default stipulations and acquitted the accused persons for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. 3. This appeal stands already abated qua the appellant no.2 namely Om Prakash @ Malik vide order dated 18.8.2022. Now this appeal is surviving only with respect to appellant nos.1 and 3 namely Brijmohan and Manoj Kumar. 4. Learned counsel for appellants have made no argument on the point of conviction and submitted that appellants have been released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and they have followed the conditions as stipulated in the judgement and order dated 30.10.1987. He submitted that due to order of probation, future of appellants may not be affected. Hence this appeal. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, H.N.Srivastava, Ranjeet Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Brijmohan And Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned AGA opposed the contention made by learned counsel for appellant. 6. The prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution story in their statements given before the trial Court. 7. In this context Section 12 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is reproduced:- "12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence." 8. Interpretation of Section 12 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 will depend upon observation given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway & another vs. T. R. Challapan, AIR 1975 SC 2216 and by Delhi High Court in the case of Iqbal Singh vs. Inspector General of Police and others, AIR 1970 Delhi, 240. 9. Appellants were convicted under Section 452, 324/34 and 323/34 IPC by the Court concerned and maximum lenient view was taken by the trial Court. Three years of probation have elapsed from the date of judgment. No fruitful purpose would serve in keeping this appeal pending. The view taken by the trial Court is plausible view. No interference is called for. The judgement and order dated 30.10.1987 passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 10. The bail bonds and sureties of the said appellants are discharged from their liabilities. 11. Office is directed to transmit copy of this order alongwith record of trial Court to the trial Court. December 15, 2025 Dev CRLA No. 2892 of 1987 2 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad