ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
T. S. MISRA, KAMLESHWARNATH, JJ.
STATE OF U.P.
VERSUS
SALEZAR
Criminal Appeal No.460 of 1977,
Decided On : 11 -7 -1983
CRIMINAL APPEAL - RAILWAY PROPERTY (UNLAWFUL POSSESSION) ACT, 1966 - SECTION 3 - PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958 - SECTION 4 - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - MAINTAINABILITY - STATE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO APPEAL AGAINST INADEQUATE SENTENCE - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 377 CR.P.C. - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF SECTION 377 CR.P.C. - DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONVICTION BY TRIAL COURT AND CONVICTION BY APPELLATE COURT - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 377 (1) CR.P.C. TO APPEALS AGAINST SENTENCE PASSED BY APPELLATE COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an employee of Loco-Workshop Charbagh, Northern Railway, Lucknow, was caught red-handed concealing railway property (brass metal) worth approximately 2 kilograms. He was convicted under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment by the trial court. The appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence but granted the respondent the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, releasing him on a bond of Rs.1000/- with two sureties.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appeal filed by the State under Section 377 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. The court found that Section 377 Cr.P.C. only applies to appeals against sentences passed by trial courts, not appellate courts. The court also noted that the appellate court had not reduced the sentence but had only granted the respondent the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which is revisable under Section 11(4) of that Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal filed by the State under Section 377 Cr.P.C. was maintainable. 2. Whether the appellate court had the authority to grant the respondent the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 377 Cr.P.C. only applies to appeals against sentences passed by trial courts, not appellate courts. 2. The appellate court did not reduce the sentence but only granted the respondent the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which is revisable under Section 11(4) of that Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable under Section 377 Cr.P.C.
T. S. Misra, J.:- This appeal by the State is directed against the order dated 29-4-1977 passed by Sri L.P. Misra, V Addl. Sessions Judge, Lucknow. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal in brief are these : The respondent Salezar an employee of Loco-Workshop Charbagh. Northern Railway, Lucknow, was caught red-handed on 24-9-1969 at about 4.40 p.m. at the gate No.4 of the Loco Workshop concealing 33 pieces of brass metal which were railway property. The weight of the brass metal was about 2 kilograms. A recovery memo was prepared before the witnesses and the accused-respondent Salezar was challaned under Section 3 of the Railway Property, (Unlawful Possession) Act. The trial Court after examining the witnesses and considering the evidence on record and the surrounding circumstances convicted the respondent and sentenced him to one year's R.I., vide order dated 23-9-1976. The present respondent Salezar impugned that order before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow by filing Criminal Appeal No.102 of 1976 which came up for hearing before the learned V Addl. Sessions Judge, Lucknow who after hearing the appellant and the respondent concurred with the trial Court both on the question of conviction and sentence. It appears from the impugned judgment of the learned V Addl. Sessions Judge that a request was made be fore him to reduce the period of sentence from one year's R.I. to the period already undergone by the accused who had been in jail in connection with that case for one month and ten days or so. The appellate Court below declined to do so observing that it was not a fit case for reduction of sentence. It, however, gave benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, hence while dismissing the appeal the appellate Court below ordered that instead of serving out the sentence given by the learned Magistrate the accused shall be released on his entering into a bond of Rs.1000/- with two sureties in the like amount to appear and receive sentence within a period of one year from 'today' when called upon and during the period he will keep peace and be of good behaviour. The accused was permitted to file the personal bond as well as the surety bonds within a week from the order. It was also made clear that if the bonds were not submitted the accused will be taken into custody. Against this decision the State has filed the instant appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the appellate Court below has not assigned any good or valid reason for the release of the respondent under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and also pleading as ground that the reduction of sentence by the appellate Court below is against the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act.
2. The learned counsel for the State submitted at the outset that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. 1958 would not be applicable to a case covered by the Railway Property. (Unlawful Possession) Act and that at any rate there was no such adequate circumstances much less reason to extend the benefit of that Act to the respondent. In ground No.5 it has been stated that in any case the modified order of sentence by the lower appellate Court is inadequate and is liable to be set aside.
3. The appeal has admittedly been filed under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which provides that the State Government may, in any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High Court, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. Section 377 Cr.P.C., therefore, gives a right to the State Government to file an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. It has therefore, to be seen whether the instant appeal has been filed by the State Government against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy and if it is not so the appeal would not be maintainable. As pointed out her
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.