The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the trial and appellate courts to consider the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act and grant probation in fit cases, emphasizing the reformatory and correctional object of sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionists without entering into the merits of the case, has confined his argument to the effect that the revisionist have been convicted for the offence under sections 147, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC and the maximum sentence which has been awarded to the revisionist is one year.

3. This revision pertains to the judgement passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2005 by which the appeal of the revisionist has been dismissed which was filed against the conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 49/02/88 (State Vs. Sahdev and others), under sections 147, 323/149, 325/149 IPC, P.S. Nautanwa, District Gorakhpur by which revisionists were convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 147 for 3 months simple imprisonment, for the offence under section 323/149 IPC for six months simple imprisonment and for the offence under section 325/149 for one year simple imprisonment. It is pertinent to mention that the conviction and sentence was maintained by the judgement in appeal and the appeal was dismissed.

4. The submission of the learned counsel is that the said criminal case in respect of a criminal incident dated 28.10.1988 and it was in between related parties through their ancestral and a marpeet took place between the two and a NCR was also lodged from the side of the revisionists in which charge-sheet was submitted. But prior to decision of this Court, the same resulted in acquittal. Further submission is that a reference of that cross case finds mention in the judgement of the lower court. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that the case which was lodged from the side of the revisionists resulted in acquittal and the learned trial court failed to determine who was aggressor on technical ground. That the police papers which were filed in this case from the side of the revisionist were photostat and they were not proved by the adducing evidence. He has submitted that what ever was the result, it was specifically requested from the side of the revisionist all the accused persons before the learned Magistrate for giving benefit of probation in view of the sentence passed by them, but the same was not legally considered. Further submission is that in the criminal incident the accused persons were not assigned with any deadly weapon and all the injuries were caused by lathi and danda. It has been further submitted that only two injured persons sustained fracture and the fracture was not on vital parts but on finger and elbow. The further submission is that it is a case pertaining to a criminal offence of the year 1998.

5. So far as conviction under Sections 147, 323/149, 325/149 IPC are concerned, learned counsel to the revisionists requested that looking to the fact that revision is pending since 2005 and awarded sentence is not more than one year simple imprisonment, revisionists may be released on probation for maintaining peace and good behavior for specified period. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that the effect of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in the background of what is stated in Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has not been kept in view. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Subhash Chand & others Vs State of UP (2015 Law Suit (All) 1343) and the judgment in Criminal Revision No. 1319 of 1999 (Hargovind & Others vs. State of U.P.) passed by this Court on 11.01.2019.

Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads as follows:

"3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.- When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or secti