Orissa High Court
Jirakhan Chandrakar vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party on 19 September, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.265 of 2003
Jirakhan Chandrakar .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Senior Advocate
& Mr. S.S. Paikray, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
19.09.2025
Order No.
09. 1. Heard Mr. Paikray, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.13/86 of 2000
confirming the order of conviction and sentence awarded in SC
No.43/11 of 1999 by the learned CJM-Cum-Assistant Sessions
Judge, Nuapada on the grounds stated.
3. Mr. Paikray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was not released on probation of good
conduct for having not been able to receive a report from
Probation Officer as by then no such officer was posted at
Nuapada. The further submission is that the petitioner has
remained in judicial custody for 72 days and having not
received any such probation report, he has been directed to
undergo a sentence of two months RI with fine of Rs.300/- for
the offence under Sections 324 IPC with a set off the detention
period in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the
petitioner has also been directed to pay a fine of Rs.200/- only
in respect of the offence under Section 341 IPC.
4. The petitioner faced the trial in connection with SC
No.43/11 of 1999 and was convicted as such and the appeal
was filed and was dismissed confirming the order of conviction
and sentence.
5. The challenge to the impugned judgment confirmed in
appeal is to the effect that the petitioner should have been
allowed to go on probation instead of a sentence awarded.
Merely, for the reason that no probation officer was posted at
Nuapada, the contention of Mr. Paikray, learned counsel is that
the learned court below could not have sentenced the petitioner.
6. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State submits that the
learned Court below has not committed any error or illegality in
confirming the order of conviction and sentence.
7. Originally, the petitioner was made to face trial for an
offence under Section 307 IPC, however, he has been convicted
under Sections 324 and 341 I.P.C. From the impugned
judgment of the learned CJM-Cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,
Nuapada, it is made to understand that by then, since the
Probation Officer was not posted at Nuapada, he could not
consider release of the petitioner on probation. Having regard
to the nature of allegations against the petitioner, who was by
then 21 years old and him having remained in custody for about
72 days, the Court is of the view that he should have been
allowed to go on probation after due admonition. Of course, the
learned court below was of the view that the petitioner should
be kept under observation in terms of Section 4 of the
Probation of the Offenders Act (hereinafter referred to 'the P.O.
Act') but having regard to the sentence awarded of two months
with fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C.,
the Court is of the view that he should have been directed to be
released on probation after admonition in terms of Section 4(1)
of the P.O. Act.
8. Since, the argument is confined to the plea that the
petitioner should have been granted the relief under the P.O.
Act, the order of conviction is confirmed, however, he is
allowed to go on probation after admonition, as the Court is of
the view that such a course of action would serve the purpose
and meet the ends of justice instead of directing him to undergo
the sentence at this distant point of time and accordingly, it is
directed.
9. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal
No.13/86 of 2000 is hereby modified with a direction to the
learned CJM-Cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuapada to
release the petitioner under probation after due admonition in
connection with SC No.43/11 of 1999.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA (R.K. Pattanaik)
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication Judge
Location:
BalaramOHC, CUTTACK
Date: 20-Sep-2025 15:58:43
