Taufiq Ahmad and Another vs State of Uttarakhand

Hon''ble U.C. Dhyani, J.—This criminal revision No. 09 of 2012 has been filed by the revisionists Taufiq Ahmad and Habib against the judgement and order dated 25.1.2012, passed by the Sessions Judge, Champawat in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2010 arising out of the judgement and order dated 23.4.2010, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2009, State vs. Taufiq Ahmad & Another, whereby the accused/revisionists have been convicted for the offence u/s 6(1) of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 and each of the accused revisionists, in accordance with the punishment provided u/s 11(2) of the Act, have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year along with fine of rupees 40,000/- each, in default, to undergo six months'' further imprisonment. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Champawat has reduced the period of sentence, imposed for the default of payment of fine, from six months'' further imprisonment to three months'' further imprisonment.

Instead of arguing the revision on merit, learned counsel for the revisionists made a prayer that the revisionists Taufiq Ahmad and Habib be granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Shri Shivanand Bhatt, learned brief holder for the State has submitted that the revision is liable to be dismissed. I have perused the impugned judgment and order, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Champawat. There is substance in the argument of learned brief holder, to which learned Counsel for the revisionists does agree. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed on merits.

The next question arises as to whether the accused persons/revisionists should be granted benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958?

Learned Brief Holder is in agreement with the scheme of law advanced on behalf of the accused/revisionists that if the revisionists are granted benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, it will serve the ends of justice. He has admitted that none of the accused/revisionists have been convicted earlier.

This court is also in complete agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the accused/revisionists and learned brief holder representing the State that it is a fit case in which the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be granted to the accused/revisionists in the interest of justice.

In the Statement of Objects and Reasons (SOR) to the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, it was proposed to empower courts to release the offenders after admonition in respect of certain specified offences. It was also proposed to empower courts to release on probation, in all suitable cases, the offenders found guilty of having committed an offence, not punishable with the death or imprisonment for life. During the period of probation the offenders are supposed to remain under the supervision of the probation officers in order that they may reform themselves and become useful members of the society.

Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 empowers the courts to release offenders, who are found guilty of having committed an offence punishable u/s 379, section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of IPC or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and if no previous conviction is proved against him and court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct u/s 4, release him after due admonition.

The maximum sentence as provided u/s 11(2) of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 for the offence of Section 6(1) of the said Act is punishment with any type of imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 3 years with fine of Rupees 2000 per cow which may be extended up to Rupees 2500 per cow progeny.

Since none of the revisionists are previous convicts and no minimum sentence is provided for the offence thus committed by the accused/revisionists, therefore, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it will be expedient to release them on probation of good conduct.

The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the sentence imposed on each of the revisionists is modified to say that having regard to the circumstances of the case including nature of the offence and the character of the offenders it is expedient to release them on probation of good conduct u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is directed that instead of the sentencing them at once to such punishment, the revisionists Taufiq Ahmad and Habib be released on probation on their entering into a bond of the amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned with proper sureties, to appear and receive sentences when called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Since it is expedient so to do in the interest of the offenders and of the public, therefore, it is also directed that the offenders shall remain under the supervision of District Probation Officer, Champawat. Learned C.J.M./Magistrate having jurisdiction may grant the revisionists such time, as he may consider appropriate, to execute bonds as is required u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. If fine or part of it has been paid by the accused/revisionists, the same shall be deemed to have been paid towards costs of the proceedings u/s 5(1)(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The revision thus stands disposed of finally.