Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 589 (ALL)

UMA SHANKER v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-02-19

VIJAY LAKSHMI

body2016
Judgment : Hon'ble Mrs.Vijay Lakshmi, J. Vide judgment and order dated 31.3.97 the revisionists were convicted by the First Additional Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in Case Crime No.942/91 (Surya Narain Vs. Chote Lal and others) under Section 323 & 325 of I.P.C. However, learned Judicial Magistrate, by taking a lenient view and considering the accused persons to be First Offenders, gave them benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act directing the accused revisionists to be released, on their entering into personal bond of Rs.3000/- and two sureties each in the like amount with condition to maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of probation. Learned Magistrate further directed each of the accused revisionists to pay Rs.500/- as compensation to the victims. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the accused revisionists preferred Criminal Appeal No.18 of 1997, which was also dismissed after a detailed discussion of evidence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Now the accused revisionists, by means of the instant Criminal Revision are before this Court. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the revisionists during the course of arguments has pressed only one point, that while giving the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, the Court is not entitled to impose fine, whereas, both the Courts below have committed manifest legal error by imposing fine on the revisionists. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court namely, MENHADI Vs. State of U.P.1996 (33) ACC 656 and SHRI RAM and others Vs. State 1996(33)ACC 657. When the attention of the learned counsel for the revisionists was drawn towards the operative portion of the judgment passed by learned Magistrate, having the word 'KSHATIPURTI' (compensation) and not the word "fine" in it, learned counsel submitted that even the order to pay compensation is also illegal because there is no provision for payment of compensation in U.P. First Offenders Probation Act, 1938, applicable in State of U.P. The bone of contention in this case is whether the U.P. First offenders Probation Act, 1938 or the Central Act, i.e. Probation of First Offender's Act, 1958 is applicable in the instant case. In U.P. First Offender's Probation Act, 1938, there is no provision for payment of compensation, whereas Section 5 of the Central Act No.20 of 1958 makes provision for payment of compensation and costs to the victim. Before coming into force of the Central Act (Act No.20 of 1958),some States including U.P. had their own legislation regarding probation. The necessity of having a uniform law in this regard was felt. Hence, the Central Act, i.e. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was passed, the Statement of Objects and Reasons wherein enacts as under.:- In view of the widespread interest in the probation system in the country this question has been examined and it is proposed to have a Central Law, which should be uniformly applicable to all States.? However, under sub-clause(3) of Section 1 of the Act, the Central Act was to come into force in a State on such date as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint. Different dates were appointed for different parts of the State. Vide notification No.683/XXVI-2-80-500(25)-78, dated May 29, 1980 published in U.P. Gazette, Part I, dated 21st June 1980, page 848, the Central Act was made applicable to 15 districts of this State and with effect from 1.5.81 the Central Act became applicable to 35 more districts including the district 'Jaunpur' related to the instant case. In the case of Hari Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1990 A.L.J.page 4 this Court has held that Central Act will be applicable in State of U.P. and Act 6 of 1938 will not apply after the date of notification. In view of the above discussion there appears no force in the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist that U.P. Act will apply in the instant case. As a result, the trial court was entitled to order for payment of compensation to the victims while giving the benefit of probation to the accused/revisionists. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the revisionists are of no avail for the aforesaid reasons and also due to the facts being different. In the case of Menhadi relied on by learned counsel for the revisionist, the lower court had maintained the sentence of fine imposed on the offender while releasing them on probation, which was set aside in wake of Section 4 of U.P. Act of 1938. In the case of Menhadi relied on by learned counsel for the revisionist, the lower court had maintained the sentence of fine imposed on the offender while releasing them on probation, which was set aside in wake of Section 4 of U.P. Act of 1938. In the instant case, the trial court has not imposed any fine but has ordered for compensation. The record shows that the order awarding compensation of Rs.1500/- to the two injured persons was passed on 31.3.97 by learned Magistrate but the revisionist instead of paying the amount continued to prolong the matter for a period of about 19 years by keeping the litigation pending. Under these circumstances, it appears expedient in the interest of justice that the victims be awarded some interest on the amount of compensation. Keeping in view the prevailing rates, interest at the rate of 10% appears to be just and proper which shall be payable since the date of judgment of trial court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. The revisionists are directed to deposit the amount of compensation along with 10% interest from the date of judgment passed by First Additional Judicial Magistrate, i.e. 31.3.97 within one month in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur is directed to ensure the payment of such amount so deposited to the victims or to their legal heirs, after their due identification, in accordance with law. In default of depositing of such amount by the revisionists, the Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to recover such amount from the revisionists as arrears of land revenue. ——————