Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 195 (HP)

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Ranjit Singh

2004-08-13

K.C.SOOD

body2004
JUDGMENT : K.C. Sood, J. This petition arises out of the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (11), Kangra at Dharamshala dated 12th March, 2004. , 2. It appears, respondents Ranjit Singh and Pradeep Singh were prosecuted and convicted by the learned trial court for offences punishable under Sections 323 325 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code and sentenced as follows: Section under Which Convicted: Sentence imposed: Section 325 read with Rs.1000/- To suffer rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Section 34 of the IPC suffer Each and in case of default in the payment of fine to simple imprisonment for one month. Section 506 read with and to pay To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months Section 34 of the IPC payment of Rs. 500/- each and in case of default in the of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. Section 323 read with default in the To pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in case of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. 3. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 4. Dissatisfied, the respondents, carried an appeal before the leamec Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, was his impugned judgment up held the conviction but took a view that the respondents were titled to benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and proceeds to exclusive benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act by directing that fie respondents be released on their executing personal bonds in the amount of Rs. $$5 500/- each with one surety each of the like amount for a period of one year, and to x of good behaviour and maintain peace, and to receive the sentence imposed, as ad when called upon to do so , during the period of probation. 6. This order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, without eating for report from the Probation Officer, as contemplated under Section 4 (2) of fie Probation of Offenders Act. Even though he observed that the order made by him shall be subject to the report of Probation Officer, who was directed to submit its report within two months, from the date of passing of the orders. 7. Even though he observed that the order made by him shall be subject to the report of Probation Officer, who was directed to submit its report within two months, from the date of passing of the orders. 7. It is well settled that before any order, under Section 4 of the Act, is made, the Court has to consider the report of the Probation Officer concerned in relation to the case because such a report would be of paramount importance for considering whether such benefit should be extended or not to the convict. 8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, clearly erred in making the order under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, without considering the report of be Probation Officer. 9. The Order being unsustainable is set aside. The case shall go back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, who shall call for a report and thereafter make appropriate orders in accordance with law and observations made hereinabove. 10. The respondents shall appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, who shall call for a report and thereafter make appropriate orders in accordance with law and the observations made hereienabove. 11. The respondents shall appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshalla on 13th September, 2004. 12. The petition is disposed of. 13. Copy Dasti on usual charges.