Bombay High Court
Dnyaneshwar S/O Anandrao ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Narkhed ... on 2 May, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
63revn84.22.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 84/2022
Dnyaneshwar Anandrao Balpande..Versus...State of Maharashtra
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Mr. A.A.Dhawas, Advocate for applicant
Ms. T.H.Udheshi, APP respondent.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 02/05/2022
1] In pursuance to the order dt. 7/4/22 passed
earlier, Heard Mr. Dhawas, learned counsel for the applicant,
as Mr. Bezalwar is no longer the counsel appearing for the
applicant.
2] Mr. Dhawas, learned counsel for the applicant, on
the question of grant of benefit of the Probation of Offenders
Act, submits that Section 360(1) of the Cr.P.C. is a mandatory
provision, in which the learned Magistrate or the appellate
Court has to record in the judgment the special reasons for not
providing the benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C to the accused.
He submits that there are no such reasons. Further inviting my
attention to Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, he
submits that considering the fact that there are no criminal
antecedents, the applicant is a poor agriculturist, the report of
the Probation Officer be called and based upon it, the benefit
of the Probation of Offenders Act be given.
63revn84.22.odt
3] This contention is vehemently opposed by the
learned APP, who places reliance upon Section 19 of the
Probation of Offenders Act which excludes the applicability of
Section 360 of the Cr.P.C, 1973, which is pari materia to
Section 562 of Cr.P.C., 1908. A further reliance is placed upon
Ajahar Ali vrs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 10 SCC 31, to
contend that in case of heinous crime such as offence under
Sections 354, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C and 354-D of the IPC, the
benefits of Probation of Offenders Act are not available.
4] A reading of Section 19 of the Probation of
Offenders Act would indicate exclusion of provision of Section
360 of the Cr.P.C for the purpose of Section 4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act. It is further material to note that the
applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section
354-B of the IPC. In Ajahar Ali (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that the provisions of Section 354 of the IPC
have been enacted to safeguard the public morality and decent
behaviour and therefore, if any person uses criminal force
upon any women with the intention or knowledge that the
women's modesty will be outraged, he would be punished,
thereby indicating that the benefit of the Probation of
Offenders Act ought not be given to the persons who have
been convicted under Section 354 of the IPC. In the order
dated 7.4.2022, I have pointed out as to what was the role of
63revn84.22.odt
the applicant, in regards the commission of the offence under
Section 354-B of the IPC, when he had tried to not only
disrobe the complainant, but had also tried to commit the
offence under Section 376 of the IPC upon her, in view of
which in my considered opinion even on facts the applicant
would not be entitled to any benefit of the Probation of
Offenders Act even if it was held to be so applicable. I
therefore do not see any merit in the contention, the same is
rejected.
5] The criminal revision is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
Digitally sign byRAJESH
VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:02.05.2022 18:48
