The Allahabad High Court observed that when all the accused persons have been found guilty of committing the same offences, granting benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to one of them and denying the same benefit to the revisionists “keeping in view the nature of the offence” is unreasonable.
Brief Facts:
The present criminal revision petition was filed by three accused challenging the validity of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Session Judge, Gonda, in criminal appeal and the order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Gonda, convicting them under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the D.P. Act and sentencing them to one-year simple imprisonment.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant contended that the trial Court has convicted and sentenced all the accused persons for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act of 1958 has been granted to co-accused, but the same has been denied to the revisionists without assigning any cogent reason. Further, it was submitted that the revisionists are also first offenders; they have no criminal history, and they have been implicated in the present case because of a matrimonial dispute and proceedings for divorce are already pending.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party submitted that a Criminal Revision cannot be allowed without summoning the trial Court’s record as per the statutory provision contained in Section 397 Cr.P.C. and further, the record can only be Page 2 of 6 summoned after admission of the revision and the revision has to be heard finally after receipt of the record.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that where the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding or sentence is not under challenge, and the only challenge is to the differential treatment between co-accused persons in the matter of granting benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act without assigning any cogent reason, which is apparent from a bare perusal of the impugned order itself, there is no requirement of calling for the trial Court's record.
Further, the court stated that Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, comes into play only when a person has been held guilty of committing an offence and thus, as soon as the revisionists were found guilty of committing the alleged offences they became eligible to claim the benefit of this provision of the 1958 Act. Further, the court stated that the allegation that the revisionists had not provided any maintenance or monetary support to the informant was no grounds for denying the revisionists the benefit of Section 4(1) of the 1958 Act.
The court concluded that the trial court's reasoning was flawed. The co-accused is granted the benefit of the 1958 Act, and the revisionists are denied the same benefit, considering the nature of the offence.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition in part and modified the order of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Gonda, to the extent it denies the benefit of Section 4(1) of the 1958 Act to the revisionists.
Case Title: Manbodh @ Manoj And Others vs State of U.P. and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 318 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ashutosh Shukla, Praveen Tripathi
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A., Vijay Kumar Tiwari
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
