Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 304 (UTT)

Bhajan Singh @ Bhajnu v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-08-12

R.C.KHULBE

body2020
JUDGMENT R.C. Khulbe, J. - This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionists u/s 397/ 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.06.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Case No.516 of 2000, State Vs. Bhajan Singh @ Bhajnu, thereby, convicting the revisionist under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo one year's R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default of fine, he was directed to undergo three months' additional S.I. The revisionist has also challenged the judgment dated 18.4.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2008, Bhajan Singh v. State, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist was dismissed. 2. Fact, to the limited extent necessary, are that revisionist Bhajan Singh @ Bhajnu was ordered by the Executive Authority, Tehri to remain out of the boundaries of District Tehri Garhwal for a period of six months, however before expiry of six months' period, the revisionist was found at Petrol Pump Tehri on 18.11.1999 at 7 PM. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. The prosecution produced PW1 Constable Jagdish, PW2 Gyan Lal, PW3 Sohan Singh Patwal, PW4 Constable Kunwar Singh and PW5 S.I. Jeet Pal Singh Raghav. 3. After the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist, as above. The appeal preferred there-against was also dismissed. Hence the present revision has been filed assailing both the judgments passed by the Courts below. 4. This Court has gone through the statements of witnesses, namely, PW1 Constable Jagdish, PW2 Gyan Lal, PW3 Sohan Singh Patwal, PW4 Constable Kunwar Singh and PW5 S.I. Jeet Pal Singh Raghav. The testimony of these witnesses is not only natural but trustworthy. They have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing has come out in their evidence, which may create any reasonable doubt in their testimony. In the above circumstances, this Court came to the conclusion that the Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the revisionist. 5. They have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing has come out in their evidence, which may create any reasonable doubt in their testimony. In the above circumstances, this Court came to the conclusion that the Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the revisionist. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist fairly argued that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is just and proper there is no objection to it; but keeping in mind the facts that the matter relates to the year 1999; the revisionist did not commit any offence; he reached at the Petrol Pump, New Tehri on 18.11.1999 for an urgent work; he the only bread earner of his family; he is around 55 years old and infirm; and, therefore, he may be extended the benefit of First Offender Act 6. Mr. A.K. Sah, learned A.G.A appearing for the State, admits that he has not received any report about the criminal antecedents of the revisionist, and admitted that the revisionist is the first-time offender. 7. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB Police Vs. Sanjay Binjola",2001 SCC(Cri) 897, in paragraph no.7, has held as under: "7. Probation of Offenders Act has been enacted in view of the increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offenders as a useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to deleterious effect of jail life. The Act empowers the Court to release on probation, in all suitable cases, an offender found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for the description mentioned in Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act." 8. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read as under: "4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct 1. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read as under: "4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct 1. 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 opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: "Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if 5 any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. 2. Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. 3. When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender. 4. 4. The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. 5. The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned." 9. Section 4 of the Act would demonstrate that if a person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, in that event, considering the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, the Court, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, may release such person on probation of good conduct, on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, for a period not exceeding three years. Before releasing the offender, on probation, the Court must satisfy itself that offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. The Court before passing the order of release on probation may also call report of the Probation Officer. The Court while releasing on probation may also direct that accused shall remain under the supervision of Probation Officer for a period not less than one year. 10. A careful reading of Section 4 of the Act would reveal that if the offence is punishable for a period more than 2 years, but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, admonition of sentence shall not be required and if person, released on probation, is found involved in any offence during the period of probation or otherwise, is found behaving in violation of condition of bond, he shall be directed to serve out the sentence awarded by the court. In other words, while on probation, such person should not involve himself in subsequent offence or must honour the condition of his bond / surety bond and if he breaches the same, he has to serve out the sentence awarded by the Court. 11. In the present case the revisionist is a firsttime offender. The incident seems to have taken place 21 years ago. 12. Therefore, considering the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, no useful purpose would be served to send the revisionist to jail to serve out the remaining sentence. Rather, in the opinion of the Court, he should be released on probation in order to reform himself. 13. The present revision, thus, stands partly allowed. The conviction part of the revisionists Bhajan Singh @ Bhajnu under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, is left intact. However, as far the sentence part is concerned, it is directed that the revisionist Bhajan Singh @ Bhajnu shall be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court with one surety each. The fine as imposed by the trial court will be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, to the court concerned. The concerned Magistrate shall be at liberty to impose such conditions while executing the bond which he feels fit in accordance with the law. It goes without saying that if accused/ revisionist fails to observe good conduct and behaviour during probation or is found violating any condition, to be imposed; the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bonds calling the accused-revisionist to serve out the remaining sentence. The revisionist Bhajan Singh @ Bhanu shall appear before the Trial Court on or before 18.09.2020 for compliance. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information/ compliance.