IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the rehabilitative purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act, asserting that first-time offenders should be considered for probation to promote reform rather than punishment.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Dev Choudhury, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

2. The present criminal revision petition is filed assailing the judgment dated 30.04.2011, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati in GR Case No.2598/2001 convicting the petitioner to undergo SI for six months.

3. The further challenge is the appellate judgment and order dated 07.08.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No.25/2011 arising out of GR Case No.2598/2001 whereby the judgment and order dated 30.04.2011 passed by the learned CJM was upheld.

4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 21.07.2001 one Shri P.J. Dutta, Superintendent Engineer (Operation) OIL lodged an FIR with the Jalukbari PS alleging inter alia that there was some abnormal behaviour at the cathodic current of their pipeline at R.O.W. km 420 (Tetelia) and on physical survey they found one extra pipe was connected to the main oil carrying pipe of Oil India Ltd.

5. On the basis of the said information, Jalukbari PS Case No.155/01 under section 379/427 IPC read with section 3(2)(B) of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984 was registered. Charge was framed under sections 379 IPC read with section 3(2)(B) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property were framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. In his 313 statement, the accused denied the incriminating materials found against him. The accused has not adduced any evidence on his behalf.

7. After appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial court had convicted the petitioner as recorded hereinabove.

8. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge re-appreciated the evidence in details and came to the conclusion as recorded hereinabove.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present revision petition is preferred by the petitioner.

10. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that he is not arguing the matter on merit of the conviction and shall confine his submission in the appeal only in respect of the order of sentence.

11. The learned counsel contends that the accused petitioner has not been convicted previously for any offence and he is a first time offender. And in the aforesaid backdrop, the learned trial court ought to have considered granting benefit of provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1958) to the accused, however, the learned court rejected to grant the benefit of Act, 1958 to the petitioner considering the nature and gravity of offence.

12. According to the learned counsel, the accused is having a right of consideration under the Act, 1958 and therefore, the right of the petitioner has been violated. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Appellate Court did not invoke the provisions of the Act, 1958 nor the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C while sentencing the accused petitioner.

13. The learned Addl. PP Mr. B Sarma, fairly submits that the accused is having a valuable right for proper consideration under the Act, 1958, however, the learned Trial court has mechanically rejected such prayer taking note of the nature of the offence.

14. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

15. This court after perusal of the materials available on record has also not found any patent error or illegality in passing the judgment. Therefore, without going into the merits of this case any further, this court will now deal with the entitlement of the petitioner of the benefit under the Act, 1958.

16. 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 d