The court emphasized rehabilitation over incarceration for first offenders of minor offences, allowing probation as a means to promote reform and prevent association with hardened criminals.

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J.

The instant revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 29.09.2017, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned trial Court’) in Criminal Case No. 55, titled as State vs. Hari Kishan @ Rana , arising out of FIR No. 502 dated 10.11.2014, registered under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC at Police Station Mujessar, Faridabad, whereby the petitioner was held guilty for commission of aforementioned offences and was sentenced to undergo maximum rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months with default clause. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 06.03.2018, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 1019 of 2017, titled as Hari Kishan @ Rana vs. State of Haryana , whereby while upholding the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, as passed by the learned trial Court, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the grounds as taken in the revision petition and restricted his argument to the extent that benefit of probation be granted to the petitioner. Since the petitioner is not challenging the impugned judgments passed by the Court below on their merit and seeking benefit of probation, the sole consideration before this Court is as to whether the prayer made by the petitioner for extending benefit of probation can be accepted or not?

3. As mentioned above, the petitioner had been held guilty by the trial Court for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC in the year 2017. The petitioner had then filed an appeal before the learned appellate Court but the same had been dismissed in the year 2018. The petitioner had then preferred this revision petition and vide order dated 26.03.2018, his sentence was suspended during the pendency of the revision petition before this Court. The petitioner is on bail for the last about 06 years. Much water has flown since then. The present revision petition is pending since the year 2018. The petitioner is facing rigors of litigation from the last more than 10 years. The petitioner has already undergone actual imprisonment a period of 23 days and in the intervening period, he is not involved in any other criminal case. He is leading happy and peaceful life with his family. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of probation.

4. Custody certificate has been filed by the respondent-State, as per which, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 23 days and he is not involved in any other case. Learned State counsel has no serious objection to the limited prayer made by the petitioner.

5. Before considering the prayer made by the petitioner to release him on probation, let us have a look on the law on this point. The aims and object of the Probation Act came to be decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in case Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar , 1972 AIR (SQ) 2522. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of the Probation Act had held as under:-

“The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on probation or after due admonition and for matters connected therewith. The object of the