Partly allowed

Ashraf and Another. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2022CRLA/1017/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the First Appellate Court upheld the conviction but corrected the sentencing. The Court granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the first-time offender appellants. They were released on personal bond for one year.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed regarding conviction; benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 granted and release on personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- for one year.

Ashraf and Another. Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1017 of 2002

¶3

Appellant :- Ashraf And Another. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- M.L.Syal,Km.S.K.Arya Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

Present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 CrPC against the judgment and order dated 5.8.2002, passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No.4), Hardoi in Crime No.37 of 2002, P.S. Kachhouna, district Hardoi convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo four years R.I. and a fine of Rs.2000/- on each of the appellants, with default provision.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant No.1 Ashraf is 52 years old and the appellant No.2 Suleman is 55 years of age. The incident is almost 30 years old. He does not want to challenge the judgment and order of conviction; rather he confines his submission only in regard to the sentence.

¶8

Appellants' counsel submits that the incident is of the year 1992. It was the first offence of the appellants. Apart from this case they have no other criminal history.

¶9

Appellants' counsel prays that looking to the time period which has lapsed since the date of incident, they may be given benefit of either under Section 360 CrPC. or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short, 1958 Act).

¶10

He further submits that in view of the facts and circumstances including the fact that the accused appellants have not been convicted previously for any offence, the trial court ought to have invoked the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶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-appellant. The Trial Court has not given any special reason in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence for not

¶12

giving the benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of 1958 Act, as provided in Section 361 CrPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that to that extent, the impugned judgment and order suffers from serious illegality being violative of provisions of section 361 Cr.P.C. and therefore, it cannot be sustained.

¶14

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.

¶15

The accused-appellants 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 Section 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.

¶16

Learned A.G.A appearing for the State does not dispute the fact that accused-appellants is the first time offender and was not previously convicted in any other case. He also submits that in view of the express provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C., considering the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, the character of the accused-appellants 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 above, including the fact that the appellants does not have any criminal antecedent and is the first offender, the case law, referred to above as also the scope of section 4 of the Act, this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed by upholding the conviction and fine against the accused-appellants. However, he is granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Act.

¶18

The accused-appellants are released on probation. The accused-appellants shall file personal bonds to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and they shall keep peace in the society

¶19

and shall not commit any such offence in future. These bonds shall be for one year. In case of breach of any such condition, the accused-appellants will subject themselves to undergo the sentences before the Trial Court as per law. The accused-appellants shall file the bonds within a period of one month from today.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 7.1.2022 kkb/

Ashraf and Another. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf and Another. v. State of U.P.

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

Vinay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shiv Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar Alias Guddu and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy(Home), Lko. and Another

Sher Ali and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sanjeev Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thro. Princ. Secty. of Home and Another