HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Raj – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 386/1998
Decided On : 22-04-2022
Probation of Offenders Act - Criminal Offence - Section 324 & 326 of IPC - Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Fact of the Case:
The case pertains to an incident that occurred in 1992, where the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 324 & 326 of IPC. The petitioner sought the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused-petitioner had no criminal antecedents and was entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The court interfered with the sentence part of the judgment and directed the release of the appellant(s) on probation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused-petitioner was entitled to the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, considering the nature of the offence and the character of the offender.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the legislative intent of the Act and previous decisions, including Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas, Brij Lal v. State of Rajasthan, and Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P. & Ors., to determine the entitlement of the accused-petitioner to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 324 & 326 of IPC, but directing the release on probation under Section 4 of the Act, upon fulfilling certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.
2. As per the report dated 31.03.2022, petitioner No. 2-Ashok has already died. Thus, the present petition to the extent of petitioner No. 2 stands abated.
3. So far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1992 and the present revision has been pending since 1998.
4. Vide impugned judgment dated 29.06.1998 the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Appeal Case No. 19/97 convicted the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 23.07.1997 for the offence under Section 324 & 326 of IPC and the petitioners have been sentenced him to undergo six months R.I. & 03 years' R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- default in payment of which he was to further undergo three months of S.I. respectively.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused petitioner do not have any criminal antecedents to his discredit.
6. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner further submits that the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner was suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide the order dated 25.08.1998 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application (Suspension of Sentence) No. 203/1998, and thus, he is on bail.
7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-appellant(s) may be granted benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
"4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.--
(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.
(3)...
(4)...
(5)..."
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the learned court below, the accused-petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
10. In Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society.
In recalcitrant cases, punishment has to be deterrent so that others similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of crime. But the novice who strays into the path of crime ought, in the interest of society, be treated as being social
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the accused-petitioner to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the absence of criminal antecedent....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the nature of the offence, the age of the appellant, and the absence of criminal ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to extend the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act based on the nature of the offence and the character....
The court applied the legislative intent of the Probation of Offenders Act and previous decisions to extend the benefit of Section 4 to the accused-appellant, allowing release on probation with speci....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the accused-appellants to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the absence of criminal antecedents a....
The court's decision was influenced by the absence of criminal antecedents of the accused-appellant and the legislative intent of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a person below 21 years and without previous criminal antecedents to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to extend the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the legislative intent of the Act an....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.