Delhi High Court
Surjeet Kaur vs Probation Officer & Anr. on 15 October, 2012
Author: Manmohan
#2
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 491/2012
SURJEET KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocate
(DHLSC).
Petitioner in person.
versus
PROBATION OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through None
% Date of Decision: 15th October, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J. (Oral)
1. Since on the last date of hearing, petitioner and her son were arguing
contrary to the legislatively approved concept of probation, this Court had
asked the petitioner as to whether she would be willing to engage a legal aid
lawyer from the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Though on
the last date of hearing, petitioner was agreeable, but it seems that she did
not appear before the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee as directed by this Court. In fact, in pursuance to the last order,
Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocate appointed by the Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee enters appearance. However, petitioner, who is
personally present in Court along with her son, states that she has not
engaged him and would like only her son to argue the matter.
2. Keeping in view the aforesaid, Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocate is
discharged from the case and petitioner and her son have been heard.
3. Present revision petition has been filed by the complainant against
order dated 17th July, 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Delhi, whereby appeal filed against order dated 27th February, 2012 passed
by Metropolitan Magistrate was dismissed. The Metropolitan Magistrate
vide order dated 27th February, 2012 has released the respondent No.2 on
probation after convicting her under Sections 323 and 506 Part I IPC.
4. Petitioner and her son urge that the courts below could not have let off
respondent no.2 on probation after having convicted her. They also state
that as respondent no.2 is young, hail and hearty, she is not entitled to the
benefit of probation. They dispute the report of the Probation Officer and
state that same cannot be relied upon as its status is not same as that of a
report of Vigilance Department of Government of India. They lastly
contend that the courts below have shown 'miserliness' while granting
compensation to the petitioner.
5. Having heard the petitioner and her son and having perused Section
360 Cr.P.C. as well as the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, this Court is of
the view that courts below have committed no illegality or irregularity in
giving benefit of probation to the respondent no.2.
6. In the opinion of this Court, the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. is to be
given only after accused has been found guilty of having committed a crime.
Section 360 Cr.P.C. requires that due regard has to be given to the age,
character, antecedents of the offender as well as the circumstances in which
the offence was committed before the benefit of probation can be granted to
the convict. However, the convict does not necessarily have to be sick or
old or infirm to avail the benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C.
7. In the present case, the Metropolitan Magistrate has after examining
the report of the Probation Officer, given the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C.
to the respondent no. 2.
8. It is pertinent to mention that in the present case the respondent no.2
has faced trial for a long period of twenty-five years and she is now a sixty-
four years old widow lady who is also suffering from sugar and blood
pressure problems. Further, she has been found doing selfless social work
by the Probation Officer.
9. Petitioner's allegation that court of Sessions did 'miserliness' in
granting compensation is not correct as the courts below have granted her
total compensation of ` 40,000/- for loss/injury in the criminal case along
with ` 10,000/- towards the costs of proceedings.
10. Consequently, this Court is of the view that present case is without
any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Order dasti.
MANMOHAN, J
OCTOBER 15, 2012
rn
