IMPORTANT POINT
After passing the order of conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 10 of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, the Criminal Court should not have issued any direction relating to the service career of the respondent-accused governed by the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be given in the circumstances of this case.

Headnote:Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949-Sections 10 and 16(2)-Cr.P.C. 1973-Section 386(e)-Probation of Offenders Act, 1958-Sections 3, 4, 12-Offence of absence at the time of roll-call done to over-drunk and entering the house of Commandant of Battalion-Conviction under Section 10(h) and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 months-In appeal, conviction upheld but sentence reduced to the extent of till the rising of the Court-The appellate Court further directed "this order shall be adversely affect the service career of the accused"-In revision, High Court upheld it relying upon Section 386(e) of Cr.P.C. 1973-Whether after passing order of conviction and sentence, the Criminal Court can issue any direction relating to service career of an accused governed by CRPF Act under Section 386(e) of Cr.P.C.? (No)-Whether circumstances existed which justified the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958? (Yes)-What order should be passed-Stated-Appeal allowed accordingly.
       Held : Clause (e) of Section 386 Cr.P.C. 1973 empowers the Court to make any amendment or pass any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper. The powers of the court under this Section are subject to the other provisions of law. Orders contemplated under clause (e) for amendment of the impugned order or consequential or incidental orders are only such orders which are permissible under the Code or any other law in force. Such a power does not confer a jurisdiction upon the appellate court to pass orders which tend to interfere with the service career of the convict. Amendment of the order means amendment of the main order and does not empower the court to pass an order which affects the rights of a party not before it. Incidental or conesquential orders are such orders which are permissible under law and likely to follow as a result of the main order. The consequential or incidental orders contemplated under clause (e) of Section 386 of the Code are orders which follow as a matter of course being necessary compliments to the main orders without which the latter would be incomplete and ineffective, such as issuance of directions for refund of fine realised from accused ultimately acquitted or on the reversal of acquittal any direction as to punishment, fine or compensation payable under Section 250 of the Code and the like. The High Court, therefore, committed a mistake of law by clothing the order of the appellate court to be an order passed in terms of Section 386 of the Code. We are of the opinion that after passing the order of conviction and sentence, the criminal court should not have issued any direction relating to the service career of the respondent which is governed by the Act, Rules made thereunder and the service rules governing his conditions of service. In this way the judgment of the High Court being not sustainable is liable to be set aside. (Para 5)
       Held further it is true that nobody can claim the benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act as a matter of right and the court has to pass appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of each case having regard to the nature of the offence, its general effect on the society and the character of the offender, etc. However, in a case of a trivial nature as the respondent is stated to have committed and keeping in view its peculiar circumstances, we find it to be a fit case where powers under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act can be exercised. (Para 9)
       Consequently held while allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order we direct that despite confirmation of conviction by the learned Sessions Judge, the respondent be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Instead of sentencing him to any punishment, we direct the respondent to be released on his entering into a bond with two sureties, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The respondent shall furnish the bond and the sureties before the Trial Magistrate within a period of two months from today. We further hold respondent entitled to the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. (Para 10)

JUDGEMENT

Sethi, J.-Leave granted.

2. The respondent, who was a constable of indo-Tibetan Border Police, was found over-drunk on 26th November, 1992 and absent at the time of the roll-call. It was alleged that under the influence of liquor he entered the house of Commandant of the Battalion and thus committed the offence punishable under Section 16(2) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter called "the Act"), by which he was admittedly governed. Upon trial, the Commandant of the Battalion who was also having the powers of the Magistrate of First Class convicted the respondent under Section 10(n) of the Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the respondent filed an appeal which was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, XII, Bareilly upholding his conviction but modifying the sentence to the extent of till the rising of the court. The appellate court further directed that "this order shall not adversely affect the service career of the accused".

3. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate court, the appellant herein filed revision petition in the High Court submitting that the learned Sessions Judge could not have passed the order directing that the conviction and sentence awarded to the respondent would not affect his service career, as after conviction and sentence, it was for the appellate authorities to take or not to take any appropriate consequential action but the criminal court had no powers to issue the impugned directions. Relying upon Clause (e) of Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the High Court held that the appellate court had the power to pass the impugned order. Not satisfied with the order of the High Court, the present appeal has been filed mainly on the ground that the appellate as well as the revisional court had no jurisdiction to direct that the conviction and sentence awarded to the respondent would not adversely affect his service career. It is contended that the provisions of Section 386 of the Code have wrongly been applied by the High Court vide the judgment impugned.

4. Section 386 of the Code provides:

"386. Powers of the Appellate Court. -After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor, if he appears, and in case of an appeal under Section 377 or Section 378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal or may-

(a) in an appeal from an order of acquittal, reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be retried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law,

(b) in an appeal from a conviction,-

(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be retried by a court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for tria1, or

(ii) alter the finding, maintaining., the sentence, or

(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence but not so as to enhance the same;

(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried by a court competent to try the offence, or

(ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or

(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same;

(d) in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse such order;

(e) make any amendment or any consequen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document