The court determined that the nature of the offence involving sexual harassment, especially under a position of authority, justified denial of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The Revisionist/Petitioner herein was charged and faced trial for the offence under Section 354 A(1) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter, the 'IPC'), in General Register Case No.08 of 2018 (State of Sikkim v. Sashi Shekhar Thakur). Vide Judgment and Order on Sentence dated 30-04-2018, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, with a default clause of imprisonment, by the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Sikkim, at Namchi for the offence under which he was charged. Aggrieved thereof, the Revisionist was before the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, South Sikkim, at Namchi, in Criminal Appeal Case No.02 of 2018 (Sashi Shekhar Thakur v. State of Sikkim), which confirmed the Judgment and Order on Sentence, dated 30-04-2018.

2. Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner was before this Court in Criminal Revision Petition Case No.03 of 2018 (Sashi Shekhar Thakur v. State of Sikkim). This Court having considered the Petition and while declining to interfere with the Judgment and Order on Sentence of the Learned Courts below was of the opinion that the prospect of releasing the convict under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, the 'Cr.P.C') and Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter, the 'Probation Act'), could be examined by the Learned Courts below. In compliance thereof, the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Sikkim, at Namchi, took up the matter on 14-12- 2020 and observed inter alia that the convict was in a position of power/authority and he had misused the same taking advantage of the situation of need/desperation of the victim. It was further observed that the offence for which the Revisionist was convicted was heinous in nature and he ought not to be let off lightly. It was concluded that the convict did not deserve to be released on probation either under Section 4 of the Probation Act or under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. The Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, South Sikkim, at Namchi, on Appeal by the Petitioner herein, confirmed the findings of the Learned Trial Court and while upholding the Order cancelled the Bail Bonds of the Petitioner and ordered that he be taken into custody forthwith for serving out the remainder of the Sentence imposed on him.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner before this Court urges that the case of the Petitioner may be considered compassionately in view of the fact that he has already lost his job which suffices thereby as penalty. That, he is a first time offender. That, he was about twenty-seven years of age at the time of offence and he now needs to settle in life and rehabilitate in society. It was also submitted that one of the Bail conditions was that he was not to leave Sikkim. Accordingly, he remained in Sikkim during the course of trial and was not able to carry out his duties as a son to his aged parents. That, he has been in custody for about six months now and in consideration of all the above facts and circumstances, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation Act may be extended to him. To fortify his submission reliance was placed on ratio Pritam Singh v. State of H.P 2012 CRI.L.J. 468 , State of Haryana v. Prem Chand (1997) 7 SCC 756, Ishar Das v. The State of Punjab (1973) 2 SCC 65 and also on B.S. Narayanan v. State of A.P. 1987 (Supp) SCC 172.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State-Respondent put forth the contention that the victim was a Bank Manager at