Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 386 (UTT)

Gurmej Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-08

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2010, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the revisionists and confirmed the judgment and order dated 06.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in Criminal Case No. 1015 of 2009 to the extent that the revisionists were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC were sentenced to undergo six month rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionists does not press this revision on merits. The only point raised by him was that the revisionists should be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, (for short, ""The Act") under which the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the revisionists could be dispensed with on probation of good conduct. 3. Section 4 of the Act is applicable where a person is found guilty of committing an offence where punishment is neither life sentence nor death. The Court may release such an accused on probation of good conduct on his furnishing a bond as mentioned in the Section. The court is applying the provisions of this Section is also required to consider that the accused was not previously convicted, the circumstances of the case, character of the offender and nature of the offence before exercising its discretion. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the offences for which the revisionists have been found guilty are not punishable with death or imprisonment of life and the revisionists have no previous criminal history; offenderrevisionists have fixed place of abode and they are ready to furnish the bond of good behavior. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that the revisionists have huge respect in the society and family. 5. Learned State Counsel does not seriously object to the prayer made on behalf of the revisionists. The fact is also not disputed that there is no past criminal antecedents of the revisionists. 6. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read as under: "4. 5. Learned State Counsel does not seriously object to the prayer made on behalf of the revisionists. The fact is also not disputed that there is no past criminal antecedents of the revisionists. 6. 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." 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offences and character of the offender, the request to invoke the discretion and inherent powers under Section 4 of the Act in favour of the revisionists is acceded to and instead of directing the revisionists to undergo imprisonment, it is being directed that the revisionists be released on their executing a bond of good behavior for a period of one year and on furnishing two sureties in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned and a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/-. Revisionists shall keep peace in the society and shall not commit any such offence in future. Revisionists shall also present themselves once in every month before the Probation Officer concerned during the probation period of twelve months. In the event of any breach during such period of one year, the revisionists shall appear and receive such sentence during such period when called upon to so do it. 8. However the amount of fine is enhanced for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- each and for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- each. Amount of fine, as enhanced by this Court, shall be deposited by the revisionists within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. In default of payment of fine, revisionists shall undergo one month imprisonment under Section 325 IPC and fifteen days imprisonment under Section 506 IPC. 9. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. In default of payment of fine, revisionists shall undergo one month imprisonment under Section 325 IPC and fifteen days imprisonment under Section 506 IPC. 9. Consequently, this revision is dismissed by upholding the conviction of the accused revisionists. However they are granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Act on the aforementioned terms and conditions. Impugned judgment and order stand modified to the extent indicated above. 10. Let certified copy of this judgment and order, along with LCR, be sent to the Court concerned to ensure compliance of this order.