SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(Mad) 178

SOMASUNDARAM
State By Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
Rathinavelu, Accused – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:------ For the Respondent: Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Judgment :-

The respondent herein was convicted for an offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and released under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on his bond for Rs. 300/- with two sureties to be of good behaviour for a period one year by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Trichirapalli. The State in this revision contends that Section 3 of the Act provides for a minimum sentence and that as such the Court below erred in releasing him under the Probation of Offenders Act.

2. Clause (a) of Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 states that unless for adequate reasons to be recorded in the judgment, the Court shall impose on the person convicted under Section 3 a sentence for a minimum of one year with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The question which arises for determination is as to whether despite the fact that a minimum sentence of imprisonment with fine having been prescribed by the Legislature for a person found guilty under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, the Court can still resort to the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. This Act, as pointed out by the Supreme cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top