Adheer Vishwas vs State Of U.P. Thru. Pinr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2002 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 16
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 98 of 2014
 

 
Revisionist :- Adheer Vishwas
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Pinr. Secy.Home Civil Sectt. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Qazi Sabihur Rahman
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

In compliance of the order dated 04.04.2022 the revisionist namely, Adheer Vishwas is present before this Court.

This present revision has been preferred with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2010 and order dated 14.01.2010 passed by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow arising out of Case Crime No. 111 of 2003, under Section 323 I.P.C. P.S. Qaisarbagh, District Lucknow.

As per the prosecution complainant Anath Bandhu Rai lodged an F.I.r. on 27.03.2003 with the allegation that his wife was beaten by the accused revisionist due to which she had received injuries. On the basis of the written report on 28.03.2003 the case was registered under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. The injured Smt. Gauri Rai was examined medically on 27.03.2003 at 11.45 a.m. at Balrampur Hospital. The case was investigated and charge-sheet was filed under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken by the court and the charges were framed under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C on 04.05.2006. The accused-revisionist denied the charges. The prosecution has produced P.W.-1 injured Smt. Gauri Rai, P.W.-2 Anath Bandhu Rai, P.W.-3 Sumit Rai, P.W.-4 Constable Om Prakash Tripathi, P.W.-5 Investigating Officer Manoj Kumar Mishra and P.W.-6 Dr. A. K. Srivastava.

The accused-revisionist was confronted under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the charges.After recording the statement as well as adducing the evidences on record the Special C.J.M. Custom, Lucknow passed an order on 14.01.2010 and the accused-revisionist was convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-. Similarly under Section 504 I.P.C. one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.600/- and under Section 506 I.P.C. one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.600/-. Against the said order dated 14.01.2010 an appeal was preferred which was decided on 01.03.2014. The order passed by the court below has been confirmed, however, the revisionist was acquitted under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. Against the order dated 01.03.2014 present criminal revision has been filed.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the incident took place long back and nineteen years have passed and there is cordial relationship between the parties and there is no criminal antecedent of the accused-revisionist uptill now. He has further submitted that the accused-revisionist may be extended benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 because the revisionist has no previous criminal history and after the said incident the revisionist has not committed any crime.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court dated 29.04.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 31 of 2013 and order dated 02.01.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 816 of 2014. Section 4 and 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is relevant for consideration. These provision deal with the power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduce which is as follows:-

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 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) 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."

11. Thus the philosophy of the Probation of Offender Act 1958 is reformative. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratan Lal v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 S.C. 444, while discussing the purpose and object of the Act, has observed in para no. 4, as follows:-

"4. The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years, absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the condition laid down in the appropriate provision of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act."

It is settled principle that provisions of law of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is beneficial legislation which has been enacted for the accused who is first offender and has not been convicted for serious offence.

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the revisionists but could not dispute the factual aspect as has been advanced by the counsel for the revisionists. He has submitted that in view of the gravity of the offence, the revisionists are not entitled to avail the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of records, it is evident that incident took place long back about nineteen years ago and with the place of time, the parties have developed cordial relation between them and they have no grudge for each other; the revisionist has no criminal history to his credit and he is living peacefully. The revisionist is in his middle age and is doing private job and he is only earning member of his family. the offence was committed by him due to spur of the moment and during these long years of time, he never committed any other offence, therefore, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 is extended to the revisionist.

Accordingly, Criminal Revision of partly allowed.

The judgment and order dated 01.03.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 111 of 2003, under Section 323 I.P.C. P.S. Qaisarbagh, District Lucknow is modified to the extent that instead of sending the accused-revisionists namely, Adheer Vishwas to jail, he is given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The revisionist is directed to file two sureties bonds of Rs.20,000/- each and personal bond of same amount to the effect that he shall maintain peace and good behavior and shall not commit any offence during the period of two years. The bonds aforesaid be filed by him within two months from the date of judgment before District Probation Officer, Lucknow.

A copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to the District Judge, Sitapur with immediate effect for compliance.

File is consigned to record.

Order Date :- 5.5.2022

Abhishek Singh