Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Lala @ Shyam Lal & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2016
Decided On : 22-04-2022
Probation of Offenders Act - Electricity Act - Section 136, Section 140 - [Sections 136, 140] - The court discussed the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and its legislative intent, considering the absence of criminal antecedents of the accused-appellants and the nature of the offences under the Electricity Act. The court referred to relevant legal provisions and interpretations from Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas, Brij Lal v. State of Rajasthan, and Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P. & Ors., and decided to extend the benefit of the Act to the accused-appellants, allowing the appeal partly and directing their release on probation with certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The case pertains to an incident in 2014, where the accused-appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 136 & 140 of the Electricity Act. The appellants sought the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused-appellants had no criminal antecedents and were entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It allowed the appeal partly, maintaining the conviction but directing the release of the appellants on probation with certain conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused-appellants were entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, considering the nature of the offences and their criminal antecedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the legislative intent of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and referred to relevant legal provisions and interpretations from previous cases to decide on the entitlement of the accused-appellants to the benefit under the Act.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the conviction but directing the release of the accused-appellants on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, with specified conditions.
ORDER
1. 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. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 2014 and the present appeal has been pending since 2016.
3. Vide impugned judgment dated 05.02.2016 the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act Cases), Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.27/2014 convicted the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 136 & 140 of Electricity Act and sentenced them to undergo one year S.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of which they were to further undergo one month simple imprisonment (for Section 136); imposed a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of which, to undergo one month S.I. (For Section 140).
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accused- appellants do not have any criminal antecedents to their discredit.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants was suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide the order dated 19.02.2016 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application (SOS) No.173/2016, and thus, they are on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-appellants 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 behaviour: 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)... '
7. 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-appellant are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
9. In Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. 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 socially sick. Crimes are not always rooted in criminal tendencies and their origin may lie in psychological factors induced by hunger, want and poverty. The Probation of O
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of accused-appellants to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on their lack of criminal antecedents and....
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 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 an accused-appellant, with no criminal antecedents, to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the legi....
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 and interpretation of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in granting the benefit of probation to the accused-appella....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability and benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the case of the accused-appellant convicted under Section 138....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
