Courts are required to consider the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 before awarding sentences, taking into account factors such as the age, character, antecedents of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence was committed.

Prasenjit Mandal, J:

These two applications have been filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicants of the C.R.R. No.3210 of 2005 have prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 30.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kandi in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2004 thereby confirming the judgment and order dated 16.03.2004 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandi in G.R. Case No.369 of 1992 convicting and sentencing the applicants of the C.R.R. No.3210 of 2005 to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each if default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for offences punishable under Sections 323/34 of the I.P.C. The applicant no.1 was also convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a five of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo further period of one month simple imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. The convicts have filed the C.R.R. No.3210 of 2005 for setting aside the said order of conviction and sentence.

On the other hand, the de-facto complainant filed the C.R.R. No.1176 of 2004 for setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.03.2004 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandi in G.R. Case No.369 of 1992 convicting the opposite party nos.1 to 8 therein for offences under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. in respect of all the accused persons and under Section 324 in respect of the opposite party no.1 therein with the sentences just mentioned above.

Since the identical issue is involved; these two applications are disposed of by this common judgment. The prosecution case in short is that on 23.07.1992 at 6.30 p.m. when Sri Nakari Ghosh, de-facto complainant, of the G.R. Case came out of his house and he was attacked and assaulted by the convicted persons. At that point of time, Anil Biswas hurled a bomb upon Braja Nath Biswas from his varandah causing serious injury to him. He became unconscious then he was taken to the Bharatpur police station. He was then referred to the Baratpur Primary Health Centre. Then he was sent to the Kandi Sub- Divisional Hospital as the condition of the injured was very serious. On that very day, an FIR was lodged by Nakari Ghosh.

Police investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet against the convicts for the offences punishable under Sections 323/324/326/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur framed charge under Sections 323/324/34 of the I.P.C. and directed that the case shall be tried by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandi held trial of the case and found the applicants of the C.R.R. No.3210 of 2005 guilty under the Sections mentioned above and passed sentences as stated above. An appeal was preferred by the convicts before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kandi, District – Mursidabad and the learned appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandi dated 16.03.2004. The de-facto complainant preferred the application bearing C.R.R. No.1176 of 2004 and the convicts have preferred the C.R.R. No.3210 of 2005. Now, these two applications are under consideration.

The learned Advocate for the applicants of the C.R.R. No.3210 of 2005 submitted that the applicants had to file several revisional applications before the Hon’ble High Court for expeditious disposal of the case. Ultimately, the trial of the case by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandi was completed on 16.03.2004, when the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandi convicted the applicants in the aforesaid manner. The learned appellate court confirmed the judgment, of conviction and sentence on 30.09.2005. The learned Advocate contended that the learned appe