DESHMUKH, J.:- This application raises the question of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 of the Cr. P. C.

2. The three petitioners before the Court were original accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in the Sessions trial held in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 156 of 1975. As many as 7 accused persons were tried for various offences under Ss.302, 326, 324, 323 read with Ss.149 and 34 I. P. C. Ultimately by his judgment dated 24-11-1975 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, convicted accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 under S. 325 read with S. 149 I. P. C. as also under S. 147 I. P. C. Under the first head of charge a sentence of two years' R. I. wag imposed along with a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer R. I. for one month. Under S. 147 I. P. C. rigorous imprisonment for six months was imposed. Both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently.

3. In the appeal carried to the High Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 1000 of 1975, a Division Bench of this Court hearing the appeal found that there was not enough evidence to hold the unlawful assembly proved. The conviction under S. 147 I. P. C. was thus set aside. The conviction under S. 325 read with S. 149 I. P. C. was altered to one under S. 325 read with S. 34 I. P. C. The sentence under this head of charge of two years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to suffer one month's R. I. was, however, confirmed.

4. After this the criminal trial ended before the Sessions Judge and the appeal filed by the accused persons was finally disposed of by this Court on 7th/8th Oct. 1976, present application was presented originally by accused Nos. 2 and 4 only. Subsequently with the permission of this Court, accused No. 5 was added as applicant. This application purporting to be under S. 482 of the Cr, P. C. has been filed on Nov. 19, 1976.

5. In this application the petitioners point out that the age of accused No. 2 is 24, that of accused No. 4, 19 and that of accused No. 5, 18. These ages are taken from the record as the ages given by the accused themselves and noted by the judge; Two different arguments are addressed to us on the basis of these ages. One relates to S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 1958 in regard to accused No. 2 and the other relates to S. 6 of the same Act in regard to accused Nos. 4 and 5.

6. The main gist of this argument with reference to the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act is that a certain procedure has been laid down by the provisions of that Act before the criminal court can impose substantive sentence upon accused persons. It is also argued that a procedure has to be observed and a certain hearing given to the accused person under the provisions of S. 235 Cr. P. C. before the Sessions Court convicting the accused person would pronounce the sentence. Admittedly these provisions are attracted where the conviction is under a section for which the punishment is neither death nor life imprisonment. Undoubtedly so far as the present accused are concerned, the only conviction being under S. 325 I. P. C. it is not a section for which either death sentence or imprisonment for life has been laid down as possible sentence. The maximum punishment under S. 325 I. P. C. is rigorous imprisonment for 7 years together with further possible liability to pay fine.

7. The undisputed facts as are apparent from the record are that after coming to the conclusion about the guilt of these accused persons, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not follow the procedure laid down by S. 235 Cr. P. C, This means that after pronouncing the accused persons guilty, no separate hearing as contemplated by that section was given at all. The accused persons were deprived of an opportunity to bring on record certain additional circumstances with a view to induce the Court to grant lighter punishment or to grant the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The sentence as passed by the trial Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document