IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that discretion in sentencing should prioritize rehabilitation over punishment, especially for first-time offenders.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. The petitioner herein is an employee of NF Railways and has preferred the present criminal revision petition under Section 401 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. assailing a judgment dated 01.11.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rangia in CR case No. 112/2008, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 498(A) of IPC and he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. The further challenge is the appellate judgement dated 19.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup, Rangia in Criminal Appeal No. 76/2011 preferred by the present petitioner, whereby the judgment passed by the learned trial court was upheld.

3. The petitioner has filed the connected I.A being I.A. (Crl.) 1203/2024, with a prayer that the petitioner be granted benefit under Section 360/361 of the Cr.P.C. and Sections 4 and 12 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958. Certain facts are brought on record in this regard which are recorded herein below:-

I. On 16.01.2013, the respondent wife got remarried after “Talaque” given by the petitioner and such fact was brought to the notice before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Guwahati, in a proceeding filed by the wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

II. In the written statement filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, she made a claim for entitlement of Mohr of amount of Rs. 1,01,000/-.

III. Subsequently, on 16.08.2013, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 made a joint prayer for withdrawal of the maintenance proceeding as the husband had already paid due amount arising out of maintenance.

IV. Accordingly, on 16.08.2013, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court closed the maintenance proceeding on withdrawal.

V. The petitioner is a railway employee and he is in the fag end of the career.

VI. It is also brought on record that after divorce, both the parties got remarried and they are living individual happy family life and only thing remains is the payment of Mohr amounting to Rs. 1.01.000/-.

VII. The petitioner had sent a Demand Draft of Rs., 1,01,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Maligaon Branch from its Bihata Chariali Branch bearing No. 728923, 0000020001: 000557” 16 dated 09.12.2024 dated 09.12.2014 and send it to the address of the respondent No. 2, through registered post A/D on 11.12.2024, however, the respondent wife has refused to accept the said draft.

4. Highlighting the aforesaid conduct of the accused/petitioner, Mr. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner may be granted benefit under Section 360/361 of the Cr.P.C. and Sections 4 and 12 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1958).

5. Mr. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel argues that the petitioner is entitled for benefit under Section 360/361 Cr.P.C. and under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which had not been granted by both the learned Courts below. Mr. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel further submits that accused petitioner has not been convicted previously for any offence and he is first time offender.

6. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in his usual fairness submits that the petitioner had suffered in the meantime, he is in the fag end of the career and there is no instruction with his client as regards any criminal activities of the petitioner.

7. It is by now well settled that Act, 1958 is a milestone in progress of modern liberal trend of reform in the field of Penology. It is the result of recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. It was also held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ved Prakash Vs. State of Haryana reported