Courts are statutorily obligated to consider the reformatory and correctional benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act for first-time or non-habitual offenders where the nature of the offence and the offender's conduct warrant release on good behavior rather than incarceration, particularly after significant lapses of time.

Modification of Order dtd. 17/09/2025 in R/CR.RA/643/2009

[On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 17/09/2025 in R/CR.RA/643/2009]

Date : 03/10/2025

ORAL ORDER

Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the Note for Speaking to Minutes, the same is allowed. The words mentioned in operative paragraph 7(3) “…..learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad,…..” shall be substituted in read as “…..learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jhalod……”.

Fresh Writ be issued accordingly.

---

ORAL ORDER

1. The present criminal revision application has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 15.05.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhalod in Criminal Case No. 1242 of 2003 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer S.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, S.I. for two months in Criminal Case no.1242 of 2003. The same came to be challenged in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the appeal was also dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are on 04.09.2003, an FIR bearing Cr. No. I-108 of 2003 was registered at Limdi Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that after completing her labour work, while she was returning home, the petitioner met her on the road and attempted to outrage her modesty. During the ensuing scuffle, the informant sustained injuries on the neck and chest, described as nail bites. After the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the competent Court having jurisdiction to try. The learned Magisterial Court after leading the evidence produced before the Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced aforesaid which has remained unsuccessful before the learned first appellate Court.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Kharadi submitted that the alleged offence dates back to 2003, and since then, the petitioner has not been involved in any illegal activities nor any further complaints have been made against him. It was further submitted that efforts were made before the learned Magistrate to seek the benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the petitioner voluntarily withdrew the application. Having exhausted all remedies, the petitioner has now preferred this revision application. He has further submitted that considering the considerable lapse of time since the alleged offence and the petitioner’s conduct, he may be given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, as the petitioner is ready and willing to abide any of the conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave appearing for the respondent – State submitted that under Section 360 of the Code of Crimiinal Procedure, it is not mandatory for the court to call for a report from the probation officer before granting probation. The court may exercise its discretion after considering the facts, gravity, and nature of the offence as well as the punishment awarded. He would submit that this Court may pass appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. In background of above submissions, if the facts of the case is seen, it indicates that present petitioner is charged for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and the learned trial Court recorded evidence of the prosecution witnesses after the petitioners/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Further statement of the petitioners/accused was recorded, whereby the petitioners/accused has denied their