Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 176 of 2002 Revisionist :- Pyare Lal And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru District Government Counsel Crl. Etah Counsel for Revisionist :- A. Kumar Singh,Arvind Kumar Singh,Ravi Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 24.7.2001 passed by Civil Jude (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate in Case No. 191/ 2000 under Section 323/325/504 I.P.C. and order dated 30.01.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Etah (Fast Track No.1) in criminal appeal no. 15 of 2001 convicting the revisionists under Section under Section 323/34 I.P.C for fine Rs.500 and under Section 504 I.P.C. also fine Rs.500 and under Section 325/34 I.P.C. sentencing one year rigorous imprisonment and one thousand fine to each revisionists.
I have gone through the materials available on record and the impugned order too.
The learned lower court has recorded the conviction but had failed to record reasons why the Court was reluctant in granting probation to the accused. The learned appellate court committed the same error and failed to record any reasons why probation was not granted to the accused persons.
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 postulates that when any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty, is of the opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of offender, it is expedient to release him on probation on good conduct, then, not to anything contained in any other law for the time being enforced, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment directs that he be released on his entering into a bond with or without sureties to appear and receive sentence when/then called upon during such period not exceeding three years as the court may direct and in the mean time to keep peace and maintain good behavior.
The combined and meaningful reading of these provisions would reveal that non-obstante clause contained in Section 4 points to the conclusions that the provisions of this Section would have over riding effect, shall prevail if the condition depicted therein which fulfilled and the benefit of provision should be granted to the meaning thereby that the prescription of minimum sentence in a particular offence ipso facto is not a ground much less cogent to debar the benefit of probation to the convict if he is otherwise entitle to it.
Revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused is maintained. It is directed that the revisionists 1. Pyare lal, 2. Maharaj Singh, 3. Sheo Kumar and 4. Pinki be released on probation on their furnishing personal bond (within two months) in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the conditions that they will keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of passing of this order but if they are found to be indulged in any illegal activity, the sentence awarded to them by the courts below shall stand revived.
Let the certified copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court for compliance.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Fhd.