NEW DELHI: In a case that fits squarely with the widely perceived public view of ‘snail-paced justice’, a man convicted for gambling under Karnataka Police Act and awarded different jail terms and fines by trial court and the HC was kept on probation by the Supreme Court on finding that he had not indulged in gambling in the last 16 years since the time he was first arrested.

“The incident pertains to the year 2007, when the appellant was about 31 years of age and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. As per the information furnished by the counsel for the state, the appellant has never indulged in any case of gambling, though there were some cases under Section 107 CrPC (disturbing peace in an area). In our opinion, the appellant deserves to be granted the benefit of probation,” said a bench of Justices A S Oka and Rjesh Bindal.

“The appellant is directed to be released on probation on entering into bond and two sureties each to ensure that he will maintain peace and good behaviour for the duration of his sentence (one month), failing which he can be called upon to serve the sentence,” the bench said.

Though the bench took the last standing sentence awarded to him as the benchmark for passing the order keeping him on probation, the gambler had first suffered a sentence of one year imprisonment and a fine of Rs 600 after he had confessed to the crime before a trial court, which passed the sentence on August 21, 2007, just five days after he was arrested along with others.

But, after the pronouncement of the order, the convict filed an affidavit saying he would never indulge in such activities in future. Keeping this in mind, the trial court ordered him to be imprisoned till the rising of the court. The state appealed against this lenient order and the Mysore sessions court in 2010 sentenced him to one month imprisonment with a fine of Rs 200.

Appeal against the sessions court’s order remained pending in HC for 12 years and last year, the HC dismissed the appeal, confirming one month sentence to the convict, who challenged it in SC. Though the state sought maintenance of the sentence awarded by the sessions court, the SC found that the government could not produce any evidence of the convict having indulged in gambling after 2007. Hence, it decided to keep him on probation for a month.