SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 384

Supreme Court Of India
G.B.PATTANAIK,U.C.BANERJEE
Jagat Pal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 1999, (arising out of S.L.P. (Cri) No. 3851 of 1998)
Decided On : 03/26/1999

Advocates Appeared:
.

The court has the discretion to consider the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and direct alternative measures instead of sentencing the accused persons to imprisonment.

Headnote:

Probation of Offenders Act - Criminal Conviction - The court directed the accused persons to execute a bond for keeping good behavior and peace for a period of six months instead of sentencing them to imprisonment.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted under Sections 323, 452, and 506 read with Section 34, IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment. The appellants contended that the courts did not consider the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the conviction but directed the accused persons to execute a bond for keeping good behavior and peace for a period of six months instead of sentencing them to imprisonment.

Issues: Consideration of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in dealing with the conviction of the accused persons.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and directed the accused persons to execute a bond for keeping good behavior and peace instead of sentencing them to imprisonment.

Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the direction for the accused persons to execute a bond for keeping good behavior and peace for a period of six months instead of imprisonment.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- The State is being represented. No further notice need go.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 323, 452 and 506 read with Section 34, IPC and have been sentenced to three months simple imprisonment under Sections 323 and 506 read with Sec. 34, IPC, and one month simple imprisonment under Section 452, IPC.

5. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the Courts below have not taken note of either the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Court is obliged to look into those provisions while dealing with the conviction of the accused persons. Learned counsel appearing for the State also fairly states that in a case like this, the accused persons ought to have been dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.

6. In the circumstances, while upholding their conviction, we direct that instead of sentencing them to imprisonment, the accused persons should be required to execute a bond before the Magistrate for keeping good behaviour and peace for a period of six months. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top