Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Umesh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1572 of 2021
Revisionist :- Om Prakash And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mukesh Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Maurya learned counsel for the revisionists Om Prakash, Braj Mohan and Indrapal and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 23.3.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mainpuri, in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2013 (Rajaram and others Vs. State) dismissing the appeal and confirming judgment and order dated 16.7.2013 passed by learned Addtional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Mainpuri, in Criminal Case No. 253 of 2011 (State Vs. Rajaram and others) under Section 323, 504, 325 IPC, P.S.- Karahal District- Mainpuri. By the impugned judgment and order the revisionists have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC, for one year under Section 504 IPC and for two and a half year under Section 325 IPC alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.
I have gone through the materials available on record and the impugned order too.
The learned lower court has recorded the conviction but had failed to record reasons why the Court was reluctant in granting probation to the accused. The learned appellate court committed the same error and failed to record any reasons why probation was not granted to the accused persons.
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 postulates that 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 the opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of offender, it is expedient to release him on probation on good conduct, then, not to anything contained in any other law for the time being enforced, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment directs that he be released on his entering into a bond with or without sureties to appear and receive sentence when/then called upon during such period not exceeding three years as the court may direct and in the mean time to keep peace and maintain good behavior.
The combined and meaningful reading of these provisions would reveal that non-obstante clause contained in Section 4 points to the conclusions that the provisions of this Section would have over riding effect, shall prevail if the condition depicted therein which fulfilled and the benefit of provision should be granted to the meaning thereby that the prescription of minimum sentence in a particular offence ipso facto is not a ground much less cogent to debar the benefit of probation to the convict if he is otherwise entitle to it.
Revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused is maintained. It is directed that the revisionists be released on probation on their furnishing personal bond ( within two months) in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the conditions that they will keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years from the date of passing of this order but if they are found to be indulged in any illegal activity, the sentence awarded to them by the courts below shall stand revived.
Let the certified copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court for compliance.
Order Date :- 4.8.2021
S.Verma
