REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1218 OF 2016

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 6104 of 2014)

Mohd. Hashim

… Appellant

VERSUS

State of UP & Ors.

…Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2.

Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 were prosecuted for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for

short, 'the 1961 Act'). The respondent Nos.2 and 3 were convicted

under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees

one thousand only) each with the default clause. The other accused,

i.e., respondent nos.4 to 10 were convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment of six months and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one

thousand only) each with the default clause. All the accused persons

1

Digitally signed by

SARITA PUROHIT

Date: 2016.12.10

14:13:54 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

were convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and Section 4 of the

1961 Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six

months on the first count and for a period of one year on the second

score. They were also sentenced to pay fine with the stipulation of the

default clause.

3.

The respondents challenged the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence before the learned Sessions Judge, Unnao, U.P. in

Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2013 who, in course of hearing, taking note

of the fact that the counsel appearing for the appellants had

abandoned the challenge pertaining to the conviction but only

confined the argument seeking benefit under Section 4 of the

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, 'the PO Act'), extended the

benefit as prayed for.

4.

Being grieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned appellate

Judge, the informant preferred Criminal Revision No.252 of 2013

before the High Court. In its assail, the counsel for the informant

placed reliance on Shyam Lal Verma vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation¹, State Through SP, New Delhi vs. Ratan Lal Arora²,

and State represented by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, T.N. vs.

A. Parthiban³ to buttress the submission that the benefit under

Section 4 of the PO Act could not have been extended to the convicts

1

(2014) 15 SCC 340

2

(2004) 4 SCC 590

3

(2006) 11 SCC 473

2

regard being had to the nature of the offences and the punishment

provided for the same. The High Court repelling the argument

concurred with the opinion expressed by the learned Sessions Judge.

5.

We have heard Mr. Ashutosh Jha, learned counsel for the

appellant, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, learned counsel for the State and Ms.

Rashmi Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. As the

controversy related to the Probation of Offenders Act, we have also

heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of India and Ms.

Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of

India.

6.

There is no dispute over the fact that the respondents were

convicted as has been stated earlier. The question is whether the

approach of the learned appellate Judge which have been concurred

by the High Court is legally sustainable.

7.

In this context, it is pertinent to appreciate the scheme of the PO

Act. Section 3 of the PO Act confers power on the Court to release

certain offenders after admonition. The said provision 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 section 404 or section 420 of

the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860)