Basavantappa alias Basavant vs State

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—The petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste, having made an application enclosing the date of birth certificate, by altering his date of birth, secured an appointment as a Watchman in Sri Venkateshwar High School, managed by Harijana Girijana Seva Sangha, at Sindhanur District, Raichur and when the same came to light, was prosecuted for offences under Sections 465, 471 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in C.C. No. 42 of 2002 (P.C. No. 14 of 2002) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bagalkot. By judgment dated 23-10-2007 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagalkot, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence punishable u/s 465 of the IPC or in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable u/s 471 of the IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months as also pay fine of Rs. 4,000/- and in default in payment to pay the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. That order when carried in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2007, was confirmed by order dated 7-7-2008 of the Fast Track Court No. II, Bagalkot. Hence, this criminal revision petition invoking Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has since taken voluntary retirement and is presently aged 61 years and being in the evening of his life, with his character and antecedents, attendant circumstances, being impeccable, and the only offence committed was to change the date of birth in order to secure an appointment to eke out his livelihood coupled with the fact the petitioner has suffered criminal proceedings both before the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, has substantially reformed himself and no useful purpose will be served by subjecting him to a jail life. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner has since deposited Rs. 6,000/- with the Trial Court, being the fine amount and that it is an eminently fit case for release of the petitioner on probation invoking Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent, per contra, contends that the petitioner is guilty of an offence which is against the society as also the Government, and hence not entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, and that the orders of the Courts below being fully justified, do not call for interference.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas and Others, , which reads thus:

The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to be reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society. A jail term should normally be enough to wipe out the stain of guilt but the sentence which the society passes on convicts is relentless. The ignominy commonly associated with a jail term and the social stigma which attaches to convicts often render the remedy worse than the disease and the very purpose of punishment stands in the danger of being frustrated. In recalcitrant cases, punishment has to be deterrent so that others similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of crime.

In Commandent 20 BK. ITB Police Vs. Sanjay Binjola, , the Apex Court held thus:

The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has been enacted in view of the increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society, without subjecting them to deleterious effects of jail life.

In the light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, keeping in mind the circumstances in which the petitioner had committed the offence altering the date of birth in the certificate, not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, coupled with the character of the petitioner, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing him to the punishment as directed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court.

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on probation, on his entering into a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with one surety to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding two years and in the meantime, the petitioner shall keep peace and be of good behaviour.

The orders impugned shall stand modified in the like terms. The punishment of fine shall remain unaltered.