Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
PRANAV TRIVEDI
Chandubhai Karshanbhai Bhadukiya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)
[1] The present revision application is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Sessions Court") in Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2021, which inter alia, released all the accused on probation for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").
[2] The brief facts resulting into filing of the present revision application are that the present applicant is the original complainant who lodged a complaint against the opponent Nos.2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as "the opponents") vide C.R.No.108 of 2012 registered at Rajkot Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 504, 506(2), 114 and 188 of the IPC. The main allegations made against the opponents were with regard to a civil land dispute between the families of the applicant and the opponents, with a stay operating in favour of the applicant - original
The court upheld the appellate court's decision to grant probation to convicted offenders based on good conduct and absence of prior convictions, affirming the discretion under the Probation of Offen....
The discretion to extend the benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused under Section 360 of CrPC and the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act is based on the age, character, antecedents....
Benefit of probation – Provisions of Section 361 of Cr.P.C. are mandatory.
The court emphasized the reformative purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act, favoring rehabilitation for offenders without prior convictions.
The court applied the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to release the first-time offender on probation, considering the nature of the offence and the character of the offender.
The appellate court erred by remitting the matter for probation instead of granting it directly, as it had the jurisdiction to do so under the law.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the accused-petitioner to the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the absence of crimin....
The denial of probation benefits to first offenders without cogent reasons is unreasonable, and the right to be heard is fundamental in criminal proceedings.
An appellate court cannot confirm a conviction and remand solely for sentencing; it must decide the appeal as a whole, including the question of probation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
