In a criminal revision regarding release on probation, the High Court found no illegality, impropriety, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the lower court's order dismissing the appeal against conviction, thereby dismissing the present revision.
Revision dismissed. Impugned judgment and order by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2089 of 1998
Revisionist :- Smt. Bibban Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- S.K.Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
None is present on behalf of revisionist. Heard learned AGA and perused the record. The revision is being decided on merit.
This criminal revision has been preferred by Smt. Bibban Devi against State of U.P., Amar Nath, Shiv Shankar @ Neta, Kamla Shanker and Ravi Shankar challenging judgment and order dated 11.9.1998 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur, Bhadohi in Criminal Case No 246 of 1997(State vs Amar Nath & others) releasing opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 on probation for the period of six months after holding conviction under sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 504, 506 IPC.
In this context, Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is quoted as under:-
"4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.—
(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the 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 to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, 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 the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the 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.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.
(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.
(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.
(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned."
The Magistrate had exercised power to release the accused according to Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment & order. The present revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any stands vacated.
Copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 6.10.2018
P.P.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Crim. Rev. disclosing no illegality, impropriety or material irregularity should be allowed.
Whether the lower Court erred in releasing the accused on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Bibban Devi
State Of U.P.
Amar Nath
Shiv Shankar @ Neta
Kamla Shanker
Ravi Shankar
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
