Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Hanso vs State Of M.P. on 9 January, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 9th OF JANUARY, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 735 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
SMT.HANSOW/O SHRI MOHAN SINGH
BHADORIYA , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: R/O KANCH MILL
1.
AREA,GWALIOR AT PRE. MAHARANA
PRATAP COLONY DISTT.SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
MOHAN SINGH S/O S/O LATE SHRI
HIMACHAL SINGH BHADORIA , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2.
AGRICULTURIST, R/O MAHARANA
PRATAP COLONY MAHAL KE PICHHE,
DISTT.SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
BADE LALA @ ARJUN SINGH S/O S/O
LATE SHRI HIMACHAL SINGH
BHADORIA , AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
3. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O
MAHARANA PRATAP COLONY, MAHAL
KE PICHHE, DISTT.SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ARUN KUMAR PATERYA- ADVOCATE
AND
STATE OF M.P. DISTT.MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
02
( BY SHRI G.P.CHAURASIA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
This revision coming on for hearing this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment
dated 29.08.2006 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge,
Morena in Criminal Appeal No.355/2004, affirming the order dated
5.11.2004 passed in Criminal Case No.752/2003 by JMFC, Morena
whereby the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as
under:-
Section Sentence Fine of Rs. Default stipulation
498-A 2 years RI 1000/- months 4 months SI
IPC each each
Aggrieved of the said judgment, this revision has been filed
by the petitioners before this Court on the ground that the Courts
below relied upon inconsistent and contradictory evidence and
convicted them. There are lots of contradictions and omissions in
the evidence of witnesses. The petitioners are aged about 35, 40 and
25 years respectively and no antecedents has been put forth by the
prosecution, therefore, the Courts below should have given the
benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C. to
them and further not recorded any reasons as specified in Section
361 of Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the
petitioners placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Lakhanlal @ Lakhan Singh vs. State of M.P. decided on
04/04/2019 in Criminal Appeal No.1306/2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioners made submission that
incident is of the year 6.8.90. They suffered long period of trial and
thereafter before revisional and before appellate court for 32 years.
They are the first offender.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Section 360(1) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-
"360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or
after admonition.-
(1) When any person not under twenty- one years
of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine
only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or
less,or when any person under twenty- one years of
age or any woman is- convicted of an offence not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no
previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it
appears to the Court before which he is convicted,
regard being had to the age,character or antecedents of
the offender, and to the
circumstances in which the offence was committed,
that it is expedient that the offender should be released
on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead
of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct
that he be released on his entering into a bond with or
without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when
called upon during such period (not exceeding three
years)as the Court may direct and in the meantime to
keep the peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that where any first offender is
convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not
specially empowered by the High Court, and the
Magistrate is of opinion that the powers conferred by
this section should be exercised,he shall record his
opinion to that effect,and submit the
proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class,
forwarding the accused to, or taking bail for his
appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose
of the case in the
manner provided by sub- section (2).
As per the aforesaid provision, said Section contemplates as to
which offender is entitled to the benefit of probation and on what
conditions. It contemplates that firstly, if any person not under
twenty one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with
fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less;
and secondly, when any person under twenty- one years of age or
any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life,is entitled to the benefit of probation. Both
categories of offenders have to further satisfy that he is not a
previous convict; satisfaction of the Court having regard to the age,
character or antecedents of the offender and to the circumstances in
which the offence was committed. The court being satisfied can
order, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, that he
be released on his entering into a bond with or without sureties, to
appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period
(not exceeding three years)and in the meantime to keep the peace
and be of good behaviour.
Provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory and if trial
Court is of the opinion that order to release on probation is not
advisable, he has to assign reasons for non-giving the benefit.
Beside this, as per Section 360(4) of Cr.P.C., this benefit can be
awarded by the appellate Court or by the High Court while
exercising its powers of revision.
In case in hand, offence pertains to domestic dispute. This
petition is pending since 2006. Along with charge-sheet,
prosecution has not filed any antecedents of the petitioners that they
are having criminal record or they are of bad character. There is no
evidence that petitioners were involved in any offence during this
period.
In view of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, benefit of
probation ought to have been extended to the petitioners which trial
Court as well as appellate Court have not extended. Therefore, this
revision is disposed of in terms of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and it is
ordered that petitioners be released on probation of good character
for a period of one year on furnishing personal bond before the trial
Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of the orders on the conditions that they will maintain peace in
the area and will not commit any offence during this period.
Probation Officer is also directed to submit quarterly report of the
petitioners before the concerning trial Court about their activities.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision stands disposed of in
above terms.
Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
van
VANDANA VERMA
2023.01.10
10:51:12 -08'00'
