Karnataka High Court
Sri Pyaru @ Mahamad Ibrahim vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2023
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31183
CRL.RP No. 363 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 363 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. PYARU @ MAHAMAD IBRAHIM,
S/O LATE USMAN SAB,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR SHAADI MAHAL,
CHICKMAGALURU TOWN,
CHICKMAGALURU-78.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP .K.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ALUR POLICE STATION,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-01
...RESPONDENT
Digitally (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
signed by
RENUKAMBA THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
KG PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.7.2014
PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.76/2013 AND
Location: DATED 9.8.2012 PASSED BY THE C.J. AND J.M.F.C., ALUR IN
High Court of C.C.NO.394/2008 AND ACQUIT THE PETR. FOR THE OFFENCE
Karnataka P/U/S 457 AND 380 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31183
CRL.RP No. 363 of 2015
ORDER
This revision is filed by the revision petitioner/accused
No.1 challenging the order of sentence passed in
Crl.A.No.76/2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Hassan, dated 31.07.2014.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the
trial Court.
3. The allegations against accused is that on
25.09.2006 and 26.09.2006 during night hours at about 2.30
a.m., the accused have committed theft in Kenchamba Temple
situated in Harihalli Village to the tune of Rs.3,739/- and a
complaint was lodged in this regard. Subsequently, the accused
were chargesheeted in CC.No.394/2008 before the Civil Judge
and J.M.F.C. Court, Alur.
4. After the trial, the learned Magistrate convicted
both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
457 & 380 r/w 34 of IPC. However, he called report of the
Probation Officer and after considering the report and hearing
both the parties, he exercised his power by admitting the
NC: 2023:KHC:31183
CRL.RP No. 363 of 2015
petitioners on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'PO Act').
5. This order of granting benefit of the PO Act to the
accused was challenged by the State before Principal Sessions
Judge, Hassan in Crl.A.No.76/2013. The learned Sessions Judge
has set aside the order of extending the benefit of PO Act to the
accused and convicted them by imposing sentence of
imprisonment as well as fine. This order is being challenged in
this revision by accused No.1.
6. It is evident from the records that the conviction
order is not challenged by both the accused. Both the accused
were granted benefit of the PO Act by the learned Magistrate
and only the State has challenged the order of extension of the
benefit of the PO Act. However, the accused were
unrepresented before the learned Sessions Judge and the
learned Sessions Judge without providing any legal aid or
appointing an Amicus Curiae proceeded to pass an order
against them, which is improper. Even he has not heard the
accused on the quantum of sentence.
NC: 2023:KHC:31183
CRL.RP No. 363 of 2015
7. Considering the merits, it is evident that the
learned Sessions Judge has considered that accused No.2 was a
habitual offender and was convicted earlier and hence, he has
reversed the said finding of extending the benefit of the PO Act
to accused No.2. But his order does not disclose as to what are
the grounds for reversing the findings so far as it relates to
accused No.1. He has not even bothered to hear the accused in
this regard and hence, the entire approach of the learned
Sessions Judge is erroneous and perverse. Without hearing the
accused he has pronounced the sentence which is also
improper.
8. The learned Magistrate after conviction has called
report of the Probation Officer and the report of the Probation
Officer disclose that accused No.1 i.e., the revision petitioner
herein was aged about 65 years in 2012 and was working as a
coolie in the coffee estate. It is also reported that he was an
uneducated person and he has attended the Court for nearly
more than four years and he has good conduct. Considering
this aspect, the learned Magistrate has given benefit of the PO
Act to the revision petitioner-accused No.1. The learned
Sessions Judge did not consider this aspect and without
NC: 2023:KHC:31183
CRL.RP No. 363 of 2015
providing any opportunity to accused No.1-revision petitioner
herein, he pronounced the sentence and no reasons were given
for imposing sentence on accused No.1 ignoring the provisions
of PO Act. Hence, the order of sentence passed by the learned
Sessions Judge so far as it relates to accused No.1-revision
petitioner is unsustainable and calls for interference of this
Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The revision petition is allowed.
2. The impugned order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.76/2013 so far as it
relates to accused No.1/revision petitioner herein,
is set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate
of extending the benefit of the PO Act to revision
petitioner, stands restored.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DS
