Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Baljit Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 223 of 2024
Decided On : 03-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 506 - Probation of Offenders Act - Revision against conviction - The petitioner was convicted under multiple sections of IPC, with the appellate court partly upholding the conviction and remitting the matter for probation consideration - The revisional court found that the appellate court erred in remitting the matter instead of granting probation itself. (Paras 1 , 3 , 12 , 13 )
(B) Jurisdiction of Revisional Court - The revisional court's role is to rectify patent defects or errors of jurisdiction, not to act as an appellate court - The court emphasized that the appellate court should have decided on probation rather than remitting the case. (Paras 8 , 12 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for offences under IPC sections, with the appellate court confirming some convictions and remitting the matter for probation consideration.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court's order to remit the matter was found to be illegal and not supported by law.
Issues: Whether the appellate court had the jurisdiction to remit the matter for probation consideration instead of deciding it itself.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellate court should have granted probation directly, as the law allows it to do so.
Result: Revision allowed; the appellate court's judgment is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 07.03.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge Una (Learned Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2023 vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.2.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Court, no. 2 Amb, District Una (learned Trial Court) was partly upheld. The petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court for considering the case of the petitioner for granting the probation under Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 325, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused, recorded the prosecution’s evidence and convicted them as under:
Accused No.1:
| Under Section 323 of IPC | To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. |
| Under Section 325 of IPC | To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
| Under Section 341 of IPC | To suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. |
| Under Section 504 of IPC | To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
| Under Section 506 of IPC | To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
Accused No.2:
| Under Section 504 of IPC | To pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. |
| Under Section 506 of IPC | To pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. |
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by learned Sessions Judge Una. (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by accused Balwinder Kaur and acquitted her of the charged offences. Learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by accused Baljeet Singh and acquitted him of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and maintained the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under sections 341, 323 and 325 of IPC. The learned Appellate Court set aside the sentence awarded by the Trial Court and remitted the matter to the learned Trial Court for considering the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to convict Baljeet Singh after calling the report of the Probation officer.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court, the accused has filed the present revision asserting that the learned Appellate Court committed a jurisdictional error by remitting the matter to the learned Trial Court for considering the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned Appellate Court could have granted the benefit itself instead of remitting the matter to the learned Trial Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside.
5. I h
The appellate court erred by remitting the matter for probation instead of granting it directly, as it had the jurisdiction to do so under the law.
An appellate court cannot confirm a conviction and remand solely for sentencing; it must decide the appeal as a whole, including the question of probation.
First-time offenders should be considered for probation during sentencing, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
The appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside a lawful conviction and a probation order without statutory justification, leading to manifest prejudice against the accused.
The main legal point established is the application of the Probation of Offenders Act to modify the sentence based on the circumstances of the case.
The court upheld the appellate court's decision to grant probation to convicted offenders based on good conduct and absence of prior convictions, affirming the discretion under the Probation of Offen....
Probation of Offenders Act applies irrespective of age; cannot be denied solely due to offender's age or acquittals in prior cases; positive probation report and family circumstances justify grant ov....
The appellate court's decision to grant probation was upheld, emphasizing the consideration of the offenders' circumstances and the nature of the offence in sentencing.
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
