Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2938 (ALL)

Kamta Singh v. State of U. P.

2015-09-16

OM PRAKASH VII

body2015
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII, J. 1. Present appeal is filed by the appellants Kamta Singh and another against the order dated 14.8.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Allahabad in S.T. No. 145 of 2003 (State Vs. Kamta Singh and others) arising out of case crime no. 26-A of 1997, under Section 325 IPC, Police Station Handia, district Allahabad whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 325 IPC and have been extended with the benefit of first offender under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act with the directions to file bonds before the District Probation Officer for two years. 2. During the course of arguments on the point of admission, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that accused appellants have furnished surety bonds in compliance of the impugned order. He has waived all other grounds taken in the appeal except the reduction of probation period allowed by the trial court. It was submitted that accused appellant no. 1 Kamta Singh is aged about 78 years and it will not be possible for him to walk without any human assistance to reach the office of District Probation Officer continuously for two years. It was next contended that the appellant no. 2 Mukesh Singh lives in Mumbai in respect of his livelihood. He would also face problem in frequently appearing before the District Probation Officer. Prayer has been made to reduce the probation period of both the appellants. 3. Learned A.G.A. Argued that the trial court itself adopted the lenient view and only two years probation period was allowed to the appellants, therefore, submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Learned A.G.A. did not dispute the age of the appellant no. 1. 4. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 5. In the present matter, as is clear from the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, this appeal is pressed only for reduction of probation period and exempting the appearance of the appellants before the District Probation Officer. Accused appellants have been convicted under Section 325 IPC and have been extended with the benefit of first offender allowing two years probation period. It is also clear that they have furnished surety bonds. 6. Looking to the age of the appellant no. Accused appellants have been convicted under Section 325 IPC and have been extended with the benefit of first offender allowing two years probation period. It is also clear that they have furnished surety bonds. 6. Looking to the age of the appellant no. 1 it can easily be inferred that he would face problem in attending the office of the District Probation Officer continuously for two years. 7. Considering this fact, instead of reducing the probation period allowed by the trial court it would be in the interest of justice to direct the District Probation Officer that he would not require personal appearance of the appellant no. 1 Kamta Singh at his office for assessing the conduct and submitting the report. It would be just and proper in the fitness of things that a report may be called for through the local police or any other competent agency available with the District Probation Officer. 8. Thus in respect of the appellant no. 1 Kamta Singh the District Probation Officer is hereby directed to keep watch and vigil on the conduct of the appellant no. 1 after calling for the report from the the local police or through the agency which he deems fit and proper. 9. In respect of the appellant no. 2, who is said to have been engaged in Mumbai for his livelihood, the District Probation Officer is directed that he would not insist for his appearance frequently. Appellant no. 2 is also hereby directed to intimate well in advance to the District Probation Officer as and when he leaves his native place. He is required to appear before the District Probation Officer after every six months. It is made clear that if the appellant no. 2 will not comply with the aforesaid directions the relief so granted by this order shall cease to exist and it will be open to the District Probation Officer to submit the report before the court below for necessary action in the matter. 10. The appeal is disposed of at this stage with the aforesaid observations. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned as well as to the District Probation Officer concerned within a period of one week from today for compliance.