Allahabad High Court
Badaku @ Vijay Pal And Another vs State Of U.P. on 15 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:73467
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 401 of 2011
Badaku @ Vijay Pal And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Dilip Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Govt. Advocate
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-revisionists and the learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.8.2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Raibareli in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2009, arise out of judgment and order dated 27.6.2009, passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Unchahar in Case Crime No. 349 of 2003, under Section 198A(2) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Lal and others), whereby the revisionists have been convicted under Section 198A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. for three months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/ each.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-revisionists submits that the accused-revisionists have not been convicted previously for any offence and they are the first time offender. He at the outset submits that he is not challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and he is confining his submission in the criminal revision only with respect to the order of sentence.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the accused-revisionists, the criminal revision 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.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-revisionists further submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the fact that the accused-revisionists have not been convicted previously for any offence, the trial court ought to have invoked the provisions of the Probation Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity).
6. 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-revisionists.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 the Act, 1958.
7. Learned counsel for the accused-revisionists 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.
8. 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.
9. The accused-revisionists 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.
10. Learned AGA, appearing for the State does not dispute the fact that the accused-revisionists are the first time offender and were not previously convicted in any other case. He further submits that in view of the express provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C, considering the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, the character of the accused-revisionists 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.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances mentioned and considering the scope of Section 4 of the Act, this criminal revision is, accordingly dismissed by upholding the conviction of the accused-revisionists. However, they are granted benefit of Section 4 of the Act. The accused-revisionists are released on probation. The accused-revisionists shall file personal bonds to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ each and they shall keep peace in the society and shall not commit any such offence in future. The bonds shall be for one year.
12. In case of breach of any such condition, the accused-revisionists will subject themselves to undergo the sentences before the trial court as per law. The accused-revisionists shall file the bonds within a period of one month from today. 13. Let a copy of this judgment as well as the record be transmitted to the concerned trial court forthwith for necessary compliance.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
November 15, 2025
sfa/
