Bed Kumar Pandey vs State of Uttarakhand

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Alok Singh, J.

Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he would not like to press the revision on merit, however, he would request the Court to release the accused/revisionist on probation by giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Vide order dated 30.10.2014, learned counsel for the State was directed to find out as to whether revisionist has any criminal history to his credit.

Mr. V.K. Jemeni, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the revisionist is first time offender and has no criminal history to his credit.

This Court in the case of Devi Sharma and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand in Criminal Revision No. 246 of 2014 decided on 28.10.2014 has held as under :-

"A bare perusal of the Section 3 would demonstrate that if a person is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 or 380 or 381 or 404 or 420 IPC or for any other offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and such person is found to be first time offender, the Court after due admonition may direct release of such person on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Act. Explanation to Section 3 of the Act would demonstrate that previous release on probation shall be treated as previous conviction. Meaning thereby, if such a person has already been released on probation by giving benefit of probation of first offender Act, at any earlier point of time, he cannot seek release on probation for the subsequent offence in subsequent trial. In other words, benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to the accused once in a life time, if other conditions of Sections 3 and 4 are available.

Section 4 of the Act would demonstrate that if a person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, in that event, considering the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, the Court instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment may release such person on probation of good conduct, on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, for a period not exceeding three years. Before releasing the offender, on probation, the Court must satisfy itself that offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. The Court before passing the order of release on probation may also call report of the Probation Officer. The Court while releasing on probation may also direct that accused shall remain under the supervision of Probation Officer for a period not less than one year.

A combined reading of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act would reveal that if offence is punishable not more than two years then release on probation shall be after admonition. However, if offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, admonition of sentence shall not be required and if person, released on probation, is found involved in any offence during the period of probation or otherwise, is found behaving in violation of condition of bond, he shall be directed to serve out the sentence awarded by the court. In other words, while on probation such person should not involve himself in subsequent offence or mush honour the condition of his bond/surety bond and if he breaches the same, he has to serve out the sentence awarded by the Court.

Section 5 of the Act gives powers to the court to direct the offender to pay compensation/costs to the victim, as the court may deem fit.

As per mandate of Section 6 of the Act, if offender is under 21 years of age, he has to be released on probation, if all the conditions of Section 3 and 4 of the Act are found satisfied, unless of course court records its satisfaction in writing that release on probation would not be desirable, considering the nature of the offence as well as character of the offender.

As per Section 11 of the Act, powers as provided under Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Act may be exercised by the Appellate or Revision Court as well."

In the present case, the revisionist was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of I.P.C. and maximum sentence awarded is three years.

Since revisionist is a first time offender and his service has already been terminated on account of submission of fictitious marksheet, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I find that benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be given to the revisionist.

Consequently, revision stands disposed of with the direction that revisionist shall be released on probation for a period of two years on submission of his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Magistrate. If revisionist is found involved in other criminal activities during the period of probation, it would be open to the Magistrate to cancel the probation bonds and to take the revisionist into custody to serve out the remaining sentence.

CRMA No. 1586 of 2014 also stands disposed of accordingly.