Allahabad High Court
Mool Chand And Ors.3 vs State Of U.P. on 6 October, 2023
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:64702
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 815 of 2001
Appellant :- Mool Chand And Ors.3
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Raghvendra Singh,Aakash Srivastava,Alok Kumar Srivastava,Bhagwati Prasad Nigam
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. The present appeal with regard to appellant no.4 Satnam Singh has already been dismissed as abated. Sri Bhagwati Prasad Nigam is present for appellant nos.1 and 3 and Sri Aakash Srivastava for appellant No.2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant nos.1 to 3 and learned A.G.A. for State-respondent.
3. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.09.2001 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Session Trial No.435 of 1992 Police Station Lonar, District Hardoi.
4. The learned Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for offence under Sections 148 I.P.C., for three months and under Section 323, 149 I.P.C., six months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 324 , 149 I.P.C., one year rigorous imprisonments with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they would further undergo imprisonment of six months and under Sections 332, 149 I.P.C., two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in default of payment of fine further undergo one year imprisonment.
5. Learned counsel for accused-appellants submits that accused-appellants have not been convicted previously for any offence and they are the first time offender. Learned counsel, at the outset, submits that he is not challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and he is confining his submission in the appeal only with respect to the order of sentence.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellants, the appeal is dismissed so far as it relates to the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby, upheld.
7. Learned counsel for accused-appellants submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances including the fact that the accused-appellants have not been convicted previously for any offence, the trial court ought to have invoked the provisions of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
8. The Trial Court did neither invoke the provisions of the aforesaid Act nor the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. while sentencing the accused-appellants. The Trial Court has not given any special reason in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence for not giving the benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of Act, 1958.
9. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that to that extent, the impugned judgment and order suffers from serious illegality being violative of provisions of section 361 Cr.P.C. and therefore, it cannot be sustained.
10. Section 361 of the Code is required to be applied with or without the beneficial provisions i.e. Section 360 of the Code or provisions of the Act, 1958. If the Court chooses not to apply either of these provisions, it is required to give special reasons for not applying the beneficial provision in case the accused offender otherwise, is eligible for provisions of Section 360 of the Code or Section 3 or 4 of the Act.
11. The accused-appellants have statutory right for claiming the benefit of beneficial legislation i.e. the provisions of the Act and the learned Trial Court was under a duty to consider the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or Sections 3 or 4 of the Act as mandated under Section 361 Cr.P.C. If the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or provisions of the Act were not applied, then the learned Trial Court should have recorded reasons for the same.
12. Learned A.G.A appearing for the State does not dispute the fact that accused-appellants are the first time offender and were not previously convicted in any other case. He also submits that in view of the express provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C., considering the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, the character of the accused-appellants and particularly, the time period which has lapsed since the date of incident, the benefit of Section 4 of the Act can be granted in this case.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances mentioned and considering the scope of Section 4 of the Act, this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed by upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants. However, they are granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Act. The accused-appellants are released on probation. The accused-appellants shall file personal bonds to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and they shall keep peace in the society and shall not commit any such offence in future. These bonds shall be for one year. In case of breach of any such condition, the accused-appellants will subject themselves to undergo the sentences before the Trial Court as per law. The accused-appellants shall file the bonds within a period of one month from today.
14. Let the copy of this judgment as well as the record be transmitted to the concerned Trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 6.10.2023
Saurabh Yadav/-
