Partly allowed

Jai Jai Ram and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Home

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2022/283/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction and sentence dismissed. High Court granted probatio n of offenders, releasing accused on bond and directing payment of compensation to victim under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on probation with personal bond of Rs. 20,000 to keep peace; directed to pay Rs. 25,000 compensation to victim within two months.

Jai Jai Ram and Anr. Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 283 of 2011

¶3

Revisionist :- Jai Jai Ram And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secretary Home Counsel for Revisionist :- Balram Jakhar,Akhter Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

The present revision has been preferred against judgment order dated 21.6.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Faizabad, by means of which Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2010 preferred by the revisionists has been dismissed and the judgement and order dated 5.8.2010 passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.715 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No.30 of 1991, Police Station Haiderganj, District Faizabad (Ayodhyaji) has been confirmed. The revisionists were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as follows:-

¶6

U/s 325 I.P.C. two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, twenty days additional imprisonment; and

¶7

U/s 323 I.P.C. six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, ten days additional imprisonment.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-revisionists submits that the accused-revisionists have not been convicted previously for any offence and they are the first time offenders. The learned counsel at the outset submits that he is not challenging the impugned order, confirming the order passed by the trial Court, but he is confining his submission only with respect to the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

¶9

Learned counsel for accused-revisionists submits that in view

¶10

of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the fact that the accused-revisionists have not been convicted previously for any offence, the trial court ought to have invoked the provisions of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶11

The Trial Court did neither invoke the provisions of the aforesaid Act nor the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. while sentencing the accused-revisionists. The Trial Court has not given any special reason in the order of conviction and sentence for not giving the benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of Act, 1958.

¶12

Learned counsel for the accused-revisionists submits that to that extent, the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from serious illegality being violative of provisions of section 361 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it cannot be sustained.

¶13

Section 361 of the Code is required to be applied with or without the beneficial provisions i.e. Section 360 of the Code or provisions of the Act, 1958. If the Court chooses not to apply either of these provisions, it is required to give special reasons for not applying the beneficial provision in case the accused offender otherwise, is eligible for provisions of Section 360 of the Code or Section 3 or 4 of the Act.

¶14

The accused-revisionists have statutory right for claiming the benefit of beneficial legislation i.e. the provisions of the Act and the learned Trial Court was under a duty to consider the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or Sections 3 or 4 of the Act as mandated under Section 361 Cr.P.C. If the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or provisions of the Act were not applied, then the learned Trial Court should have recorded reasons for the same.

¶15

Learned AGA appearing for the State does not dispute the

¶16

fact that accused-revisionists are the first time offenders and were not previously convicted in any other case. He also submits that in view of the express provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C., considering the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, the character of the accused-revisionists and particularly, the time period which has lapsed since the date of incident, the benefit of Section 4 of the Act can be granted in this case.

¶17

In view of the above facts and circumstances mentioned and considering the scope of Section 4 of the Act, this revision is, accordingly, dismissed by upholding the conviction of the accused-revisionists. However, they are granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Act. The accused-revisionists are released on probation. Each of the accused-revisionist shall file personal bond to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and they shall keep peace in the society and shall not commit any such offence in future. These bonds shall be for one year. The accused-revisionists shall file the bonds within a period of one month from today.

¶18

As provided under Section 5 of the Act, revisionists shall pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) to the victim, if he is alive or his legal heirs as the case may be, within two months from today.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the said condition, accusedrevisionists will subject themselves to undergo the sentence.

¶20

Let the copy of this judgment as well as the lower court record, if received, be transmitted to the concerned Trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.8.2022 Rao/-

¶22

Digitally signed by CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO Date: 2022.08.22 17:50:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jai Jai Ram and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Jai Ram and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Bihari Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Sachin @ Satyendra (Minor) Thru. His Brother Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Abhishek Bhansali Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Mithilesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harikesh Prasad Misra and Ors. Vs State of U.P.