The discretion to extend the benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused under Section 360 of CrPC and the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act is based on the age, character, antecedents of the offender, and the circumstances in which the offence was committed, and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

ORDER

1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC is filed assailing the order dated 18.11.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.42/2021 by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Datia by which judgment of conviction dated 24.03.2021 passed in Criminal Case No.391/2015 by Ms. Ruchi Golas, Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhander was confirmed.

2. The petition in brief states as under:-

(i) That, a criminal complaint was registered at Crime No.228/2015 for offence punishable under Sections 294, 324 and 506(b) of IPC against the revision petitioners at Police Station Bhander. Learned trial Court after trial, acquitted the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506(b) of IPC, but convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced them for imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.3000/- each with default stipulations of simple imprisonment for 15 days vide judgment dated 24.03.2021.

(ii) The petitioners have filed appeal assailing the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 24.03.2021. Learned trial Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

3. The impugned judgments are assailed in this revision petition on following grounds:-

(i) The trial Court has not mentioned any reasons for not giving benefit of Section 360 of CrPC and the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act to the convicts/petitioners. Learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court has committed an error in ignoring the provisions of Section 360 of CrPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.

4. On these grounds, it is requested that the judgment dated 18.11.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.42/2021 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Datia may be quashed and the petitioners may be acquitted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the judgment of Lakhanlal @ Lakhan Singh Vs. State of M.P. in Criminal Appeal No.1306/2013 judgment dated 04.04.2019 and the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench of this court in case of Santosh Vs. Shyambai in CRR No.3334/2021 contends that learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court have not assigned any reasons for declining the benefit of Section 360 of CrPC. Further, both the Courts have not considered the provision of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act in proper prospective. The petitioners deserve extending the benefit of aforementioned provisions with regard to reformative criminal jurisprudence.

6. Learned counsel further relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Jugal Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (1972) 2 SCC 633 contends that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act ought to be extended to first offenders. Since learned trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court have not assigned any reasons for declining the benefit to the first offender, the impugned judgments suffer from illegality, therefore, deserve to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition and submits that considering the conduct of the accused in inflicting injuries to various victims, learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court have committed no error in declining benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners.

8. Heard both the parties and perused the record.

Section 360 provides as under:-

360.order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition-(1) when any person not under twenty- one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty- one years of age or any woman is- convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was commi