Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1971 Supreme(Mad) 737

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Jaganmohan Reddi and D.G. Palekar, JJ.
Abdul Qayum
Versus
The State of Bihar
Crl. Appeal No. 290 of 1968.
Decided On : 15 November 1971

S.N. Misra, K.K. Sinha, B.B. Sinha, S.S. Jauhar and S.K. Sinha, Advocates, for Appellant.
D. Goburdhun, Advocate, for Respondent.

The court's discretion to grant probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 must be exercised in accordance with the reformatory object of the Act. The court must consider the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence, the character of the offender, and the report of the Probation Officer, before denying the benefit of probation to an offender.

Headnote:
PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958 - SECTION 3, 4, 6 - COURT'S DISCRETION TO GRANT PROBATION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - REFORMATORY OBJECT OF THE ACT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6 - REQUIREMENT OF REPORT FROM PROBATION OFFICER - CASE OF A JUVENILE CONVICTED OF PICK-POCKETING - DENIAL OF PROBATION DUE TO ASSOCIATION WITH A HARDENED CRIMINAL - HELD, IMPROPER - PROBATION GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a juvenile, was convicted of pick-pocketing and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed, seeking the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The trial court, appellate court, and High Court denied the benefit of probation, citing the appellant's association with a hardened criminal.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had misdirected themselves in denying the appellant the benefit of probation. The Probation Officer's report did not indicate that the appellant was a hardened criminal or associated with hardened criminals. The appellant was a first-time offender with a good family background and a vocational aptitude for tailoring. The court found that there was hope of his being reclaimed and afforded the opportunity to live a normal life of a law-abiding citizen if released on probation.
Issues: 1. Whether the lower courts erred in denying the appellant the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2. Whether the appellant's association with a hardened criminal was a sufficient ground for denying him probation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. Its object is to reform the individual offender rather than punish him. 2. Section 6 of the Act requires the court to consider a report from a Probation Officer before deciding whether to grant probation to an offender. 3. The report of the Probation Officer in this case did not justify the conclusion that the appellant was a hardened criminal or associated with hardened criminals. 4. The appellant was a first-time offender with a good family background and a vocational aptitude for tailoring. There was hope of his being reclaimed and afforded the opportunity to live a normal life of a law-abiding citizen if released on probation.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the sentence, and directed that the appellant be released on probation under section 4 of the Act.

Jaganmohan. Reddy, J.-This appeal is by Special Leave against the Judgment of the Patna High Court exercising its Revisional Jurisdiction by which the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Act XX of 1958) (hereinafter called ‘the Act’ was denied to the appellant Qayum. The appellant was convicted under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The prosecution case was that on the Vijayadashmi day in 1964, Jagdish Kumar Sinha along with his friends had gone to Mahalla Pathar Ki Masjid to see the procession. He had in the pocket of his pant a purse containing Rs. 56 in currency notes. At about 1-30 A.M. when he got down from the rikshaw and went to the pan shop to purchase pan and cigarette he discovered when he wanted to pay the price of the pan and cigarette that somebody had picked his pocket and his purse was gone. He raised a hue and cry and seeing that two boys were running, he and his friends chased them. They succeeded with the help of the members of the public in catching the appellant who had immediately passed the money from the purse to his associate Shamim who however escaped. Both Shamim and the appellant were convicted. It appears that before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate a joint petition of the owner of the purse Jagdish Kumar Sinha and the appellant for permission to compound the offence was filed under section 345(2) of the Indian Penal Code, but it is said no order seems to have been passed on it and the appellant was convicted as aforesaid. As we have not been able to ascertain the truth or otherwise of this fact we do not express any view thereon. There is no doubt that at the time of the alleged occurrence the appellant was said to be only 16 years of age and at the time of his conviction he would be about 18 years of age. Before the sentence was passed on him it was prayed that under section 6 of the Act he be released on probation and that no sentence should be passed against him. The trial Court called for a Report from the Probation Officer in respect of both the appellant and accused Shamim. The Probation Officer recommended that the appellant should be given the benefit under the Act which recommendation however was rejected for reasons recorded by it and he was sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment as aforesaid. The reasons given by the trial Court for not giving the benefit to the appellant are as under:

"In spite of his recommendations I do not feel inclined to extend the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to accused Qayum. Apparently he is an associate of accused Shamim who is a hardened criminal and a person of doubtful character. Incidents of pick-pocketing are very rampant in this subdivision and it was just a stray chance that accused Qayum was caught in this case. Having regard to these facts and the nature of offence and the circumstances in which accused Qayum was caught, he does not deserve the benefit of section 4 of the Act".

2. The appeal filed against the conviction and sentence however was dismissed and his prayer for giving him the benefit under the Act was also rejected. Thereafter he filed a revision petition against his conviction and sentence in the High Court of Patna where, as appears from the judgment of that Court, the only point that was urged on behalf of the appellant was that on the date when the revision came on for hearing the appellant was below 20 years and the benefit of the provisions of the Act should have been given to him. The High Court after referring to the reasons given by the trial Court said that the Probation Officer had not made any recommendations for granting benefit under the Act to the other accused Shamim, inasmuch as he was a hardened criminal and a habitual pick pocket and therefore rejected the Revision Petition as in its opinion the Trial Court was justified in not granting the benefit under the Act because of "the association of the pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1971 Supreme(Mad) 737

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAP. Jaganmohan Reddi and D.G. Palekar, JJ.Abdul QayumVersusThe State of BiharCrl. Appeal No. 290 of 1968.Decided On : 15 November 1971

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Jaganmohan Reddi and D.G. Palekar, JJ.
Abdul Qayum
Versus
The State of Bihar
Crl. Appeal No. 290 of 1968.
Decided On : 15 November 1971