Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 341 (ORI)

Pathani Parida v. Abhaya Kumar Jagadev Mohapatra

2011-06-30

H.S.BHALLA

body2011
JUDGMENT H.S. BHALLA, J.- This revision is directed against the Judgment dated 9.4.1998 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Khurda, Bhubaneswar in Crl. Appeal No. 91 of 1997 confirming the Judgment dated 23.8.1997 passed by Learned JMFC, Bhubaneswar in ICC Case No.2 of 1994/ T.R. No. 127/95, whereby the Petitioners were convicted under Sections 448/506/294/34, IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 448/ 34, IPC and one year for the offence under Section 506/34, IPC and fifteen days for the offence under Section 294/34, IPC. The sentence were directed to run concurrently. 2. Since the facts of the case have been recapitulated by the Courts below in detail in the Judgments passed by them, therefore, in over to avoid repetition, the same are not being reproduced herein. 3. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the findings recorded by the Courts below. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has submitted that the offence was committed on 20.12.1993 and more than 17 years have elapsed in the meantime and they being the first offenders and no previous conviction is made out against them, they be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offender Act, 1958. He further submitted that there is nothing against their character and antecedents on the record; and that are family men and were on bail throughout during the trial and first Appellate stage. The Courts below did not give them the benefit of probation. 5. To my find, the Probation of Offender's Act is intended to reform the offenders, where it is possible by giving them the benefit of probation. However, the benefit of probation can be denied by the Court after recording special reasons. Moreover, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is not challenging the order of conviction of the Petitioners. He has only prayed that the Petitioners are the only earning members of their respective families and their family will suffer heavily if they are sent to jail. 6. It is incumbent upon the Courts to give benefit of probation when the offenders are entitled to under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act unless the Court finds that the convicts are incorrigible and cannot be reformed. The object of punishment is not only to be retributive but also to be reformative. 6. It is incumbent upon the Courts to give benefit of probation when the offenders are entitled to under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act unless the Court finds that the convicts are incorrigible and cannot be reformed. The object of punishment is not only to be retributive but also to be reformative. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, the Petitioners are given one chance to reform themselves. 7. In the result, the revision is dismissed and the conviction of the Petitioners is upheld. But instead of sentencing them to suffer any punishment, I direct that the Petitioners be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of one year on their executing a bond of Rs. 5,000 with one surety each for the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The Petitioners shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforesaid period. Appeal dismissed.