Ranga Singh vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1997

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
Ranga Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRR-513 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Upender Prasher, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Shukla, AAG Punjab

Headnote:(A) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4(1) and 4(2) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 360 - Release on probation - Trial Court convicted the accused but Appellate Court modified the sentence granting probation without considering the mandatory report from the Probation Officer, which is essential under Section 4(2) of the 1958 Act, was challenged - Court discussed the applicability of Sections 360 and 4(1), noting that the two provisions can co-exist but emphasized the need for the report when the case solely falls under the 1958 Act - The appellate decision was upheld due to lack of prior convictions and consideration of the nature of the offender. (Paras 6, 8, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the alteration of sentence for private respondents convicted for offences under IPC, arguing that the release on probation was invalid without the required probation officer's report.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court granted probation despite no prior convictions, as both the 1958 Act and CRPC provisions could apply concurrently.

Issues: Whether the Court could grant probation without the probation officer's report, and the appropriateness of the compensation awarded.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled on the necessity of a probation report under specific circumstances and cautioned against dismissing probation benefits unjustly while still allowing court discretion in applying the provisions.

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. revision petition regarding probation under 1958 act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. revision petition filed against appellate decision. (Para 5)
3. petitioner's arguments on probation and compensation. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's analysis of probation applicability and case specifics. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. revision petition dismissed; order passed. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present revision petition challenge has been made to the judgment dated 16.07.2014 passed by the Court of Session Judge, Amritsar whereby, though the judgment of conviction of accused persons/ private respondents passed on 13.08.2013 by the Trial Court (JMIC, Amritsar) has been upheld; but order of sentence has been modified and accused persons have been ordered to be released under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on account of having received MLR No.04/SEP/RK/CH/2007 dated 9.9.2007 of Ranga Singh/ Complainant/ petitioner, his statement was recorded and on the basis of same FIR No.376 dated 11.9.2007 under Sections 323 , 341, 34 IPC was registered at police Station Sadar, Amritsar against accused persons/ private respondents and they were put to trial.

3. Trial Court vide its judgment dated 13.08.2013, convicted the accused persons/ private respondents and they were sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 3 23 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for seven days, besides to undergo 1 month of rigorous imprisonment under Section 3 25 IPC.

4. An appeal filed by the accused persons/ private respondents against this judgment, though was dismissed upholding their conviction, however, they were ordered to be released on probation by granting benefit under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as 1958 Act) subject to their furnishing probation bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year each, with an undertaking to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon during the period of next one year, and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Petitioner was also granted compensation of Rs. 30,000 i.e. 7,500/- from each of the private respondents.

5. Present revision petition has been filed at the instance of petitioner-complainant impugning the order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the first Appellate Court.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that judgment dated 16.07.2014 is liable to be set aside as while releasing the accused/present private respondents, the learned appellate court is duty bound to consider the report of the Probation Officer concerned as mandated under Section 4 (2) of the 1958 Act, and no Court can release a convict on probation without obtaining the report, however, in the present case no such report was called for. He further contends that even after the grant of probation to the private respondents/accused persons, they have threatened the petitioner of dire consequences. He also contends that the compensation awarded to the petitioner is also not adequate.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as accused persons/ private respondents were first time offenders, no interference is warranted with the order passed by the Learned Session Judge.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well. While there is substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court could not release the accused persons/ private respondents on probation without considering the report of the Probation Officer as mandated under Section 4 (2) of the 1958 Act, however, this is required to be examined in proper context. It also needs to be taken into consideration that Courts are also empowered to release a convict on probation under Secti