The court emphasized the mandatory requirement of obtaining a Probation Officer's report before releasing offenders on probation, deeming any release without it illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Robin Phukan, J.

By this common judgment it is proposed to hear and dispose of Criminal Revision Petition No. 532/2022 and Criminal Revision petition No. 610/2022, as legality, propriety and correctness of the same judgment and order, dated 26.09.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, in Criminal Appeal No.07/2021, is being questioned in both the petitions and as the parties involved in both the petitions are also identical and as identical questions of law are involved in both the petitions.

2. In Criminal Revision Petition No. 532/2022, under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, namely, Smti. Urmila Das, has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 26.09.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, in Criminal Appeal No.07/2021, preferred under sections 11/11(2) of the Probation of the Offenders Act. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2022, learned Sessions Judge, Darrang had interfered with judgment and order dated 04.03.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Darrang, Mangaldai in C.R. No. 511/2014, lodged under sections 406/34 IPC and directed to pay further fine of Rs. 8000/ each under section 406 IPC. It is also to be noted here that vide judgment and order dated 04.03.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Darrang, Mangaldai, had convicted the respondents under section 406/34 IPC and released them on probation as per section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and also directed them to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/, each, to the victim as compensation and binding them with personal bond for two years with one surety each to keep peace and be of good behavior else come before the court to undergo sentence, under section 5 of the said Act.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of both the petition are same and the same adumbrated herein below: -

"The petitioner had filed one case being C.R. Case No. 511/2014 on 20.07.2014 under section 406/34 IPC before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Darrang Mangaldoi stating that she got married with one Rajib Das on 21.04.2014 and per Hindu rites and rituals. In the said marriage her parents have given many articles and she had taken the same to the matrimonial home after the marriage. But, the respondents have subjected her to both physical and mental cruelty on account of her failing to bring coloured T.V., Motor Cycle as dowry. Thereafter the respondents have grabbed her ornaments of gold and also took possession of her almirah and driven her out of the matrimonial home and warned her of dire consequence if she return to the matrimonial home again. Though she had tried to get back her articles, the same failed to yield any result for which she had lodged the aforesaid C.R. case.

Thereafter, hearing the parties and taking necessary evidence the learned court below had found that the charge under section 406/34 IPC established beyond all reasonable doubt and thereafter convicted the respondents under the said sections of law. But, instead of sentencing them the learned court below had released them on probation, as per section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and also directed them to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/, each, to the victim as compensation and binding them with personal bond for two years with one surety each to keep peace and be of good behaviour else come before the court to undergo sentence, under section 5 of the said Act.

Thereafter, the petitioner had challenged the said judgment and order so passed by the learned Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang on the ground that she has not been compensated adequately and no litigation cost was paid and that the learned Magistrate did not called for a report from the Probation Officer as no evidence was led by respondent regarding their antecedents, before their release on probation.

But, th