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 Offenders Act.

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 9^th 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 complainant. Despite the existence of this civil proceedings, the opponents tried to take possession of the land, which led to a scuffle between the parties, resulting in filing of the First Information Report.

[2.1] Pursuant to the incident and filing of the First Information Report, a charge-sheet was filed, which culminated in the registration of Criminal Case No.9165 of 2012 before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. The charge came to be framed and after recording the evidence and concluding the arguments of both the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot was pleased to convict the opponents for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 114 of the IPC, sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2500/- each. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, the opponents preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Rajkot being Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2021. The appellate court after hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, upheld the conviction but granted the benefit under Section 360 of the Code pursuant to an application preferred by the opponents. Consequently, the opponents were released by the learned appellate court by allowing the application on probation of good conduct by exercising powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate court granting the benefits of probation to the opponents, the complainant has preferred the present revision application.

[3] Heard Mr. Kalpesh M. Pandit, learned advocate appearing for the applicant and Mr. Viral Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.2,3 and 4.

[4] Mr. Kalpesh M. Pandit, learned advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the learned appellate court ought to have appreciated that after adducing the evidence, the sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot was just and proper. The applicant had sustained a fracture on the hand and the offence was under Section 325, wherein the maximum punishment is prescribed 7 years. The opponents were rightly sentenced to around 3 years. Therefore, the learned appellate court could not have released the opponents by granting them the benefits of Sections 3 and 4 the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985. It is further submitted by Mr. Pandit, learned advocate that the application for probation was not made at the time of conviction but was filed subsequently. It is also submitted that there was an on-going dispute between the parties, including a civil suit, and thus, a history of animosity. In view of the this, the order is bad in law and is required to b