IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment, granting probation to a first-time offender under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Dev Choudhury, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. SC Biswas, learned Special counsel for NF Railways.

2. The petitioner herein is a retired employee of NF Railways and has preferred the present criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. assailing a judgment dated 07.02.2011 passed by the learned Special Magistrate, 1st Class, Guwahati in CR case No. 91C/2008, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 145/146 of the Railways Act and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 10 days inasmuch as it was alleged that he was found in an intoxicated state while on duty. The further challenge is the appellate judgement dated 12.03.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup in Criminal Appeal No. 67/2011 preferred by the present petitioner, whereby the judgment passed by the learned trial court was upheld.

3. Mr. B Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already retired from service and he never indulged during office hours except on the alleged occasion and therefore, he would not like to argue on the merit of the case as it was a concurrent finding. However, he 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) inasmuch as he has in the meantime, retired and his pension is also not been regularized for want of final determination of the present case.

4. Mr. Choudhury, learned 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. Choudhury, learned counsel further submits that accused petitioner has not been convicted previously for any offence and he is first time offender.

5. Mr. SC Biswas, learned Special counsel on behalf of the NF Railways in his usual fairness submits that the petitioner had suffered in the meantime, he had retired and had also undergone bypass surgery and there is no instruction with his client as regards any criminal activities of the petitioner.

6. This court after perusal of the materials available on record has also not found any patent error or illegality in the judgments. Therefore, this court will now deal with the entitlement of the petitioner of the benefit under the Act, 1958.

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 in 1981 (1) SCC 447, that sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting on hunch. The Trial court should collect material necessary to award a just punishment in circumstances. It was further held that the social background and the personal factors of the crime doer are very relevant in this regard.

8. In the case of Sita Ram Paswan Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2005 SC 3534, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain principle for exercise of discretionary power under the Act and the consideration required. The Hon’ble Apex Court opined that while exercising the discretionary power under the Act 1958, the courts are to consider the circumstances of the case, the nature of offence and the character of the offender. While considering the nature of the offence, the court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim. It was concluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the benefit available to the accused under section 4 of th