The court has the discretion to grant probation to first-time offenders based on factors such as age, lack of criminal antecedents, and the nature of the offense.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 27.05.2022, passed in Criminal Case No. 49 of 2020, State vs. Prem Singh, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Lansdowne, Pauri Garhwal ('the case'). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, revisionist shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days, and;

(ii) Judgment and order dated 07.10.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2022, Prem Singh vs. State, by which, the judgment and order dated 27.05.2022, passed in the case, has been upheld.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.

3. On 12.12.2022, the instant revision was admitted on the limited question of sentence/probation.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is in custody for a period of about three weeks. His age is 65 years. He is an old man. He has no criminal antecedents. It is a case of recovery of liquor.

5. On 12.12.2022, learned State Counsel was required to get report of the Probation Officer, so as to assess the quantum of sentence or probability of releasing the revisionist on probation. Today, Learned State Counsel would submit that no such report could be obtained.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the judgment and order, passed in the case, itself reveals that it is the first offence of the revisionist. It is stated that revisionist is a villager and an agriculturist.

7. The revisionist is a villager, having no antecedents. It is his first offence. In view of this and having considered all the attending factors, this Court is of the view that instead of sentencing the revisionist at once to any punishment, he may be released on entering into a bond with two sureties to appear and receive sentence when called upon within one year and in the meantime to keep peace and to be of good behavior.

8. Accordingly, the revision may be partly allowed.

9. The revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the revisionist is upheld. But instead of sentencing the revisionist to any punishment at once, he may be released on his entering into a bond with two sureties to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year and, in the meantime, keep peace and be of good behavior.

10. The impugned judgments and orders are modified to the extent as indicated above.