Allowed

Ram Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2023/617/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision under Cr.P.C. Sections 397(1)/401, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside a sessions judge order that withdrew probation benefits. The court held the appellate court violated Section 361 Cr.P.C. by not recording special reasons for denying Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act benefits to a first-time offender. The trial court order sentencing three months imprison

What did the court decide?

The order dated 25.04.2019 is set aside; the benefit of Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act is restored; the order dated 30.06.2016 is upheld with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.

Ram Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Reserved

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:51352

¶3

Court No. - 29

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 617 of 2019

¶5

Revisionist :- Ram Singh And Anr. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Avadhesh Kumar Singh,Ravi Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶6

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Ravi Prakash Tiwari and Shri Avadesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and peruse the record.

¶8

The present revision has been filed under Section 397(1)/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 6/10/15 in Crime No. 98/12, under Sections 198 Ka (2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Singh and Another) by Special Judicial Magistrate / Sub District Magistrate, Nawabganj, Barabanki by sentencing the revisionists three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and considering the serverity of the offence, they were given benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act as well as against judgment and order dated 25.04.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act / Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2016 (Ram Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P.) which was partly allowed and confirmed the sentence of three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each to the revisionists and setting aside the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that the learned trial court has not scrutinized the evidence available on

¶10

record as well as the statement of witnesses and misinterpreted the evidence. Revisionist could not be prosecuted only on the ground of complaint made by revenue authority by favouring the Rameshwar belonging to the Scheduled Caste and was given patta belonging to the category and learned trial court has failed to got the route of the matter who created the such type of circumstances. It is further submitted that a case was filed by the petitioner before the Collector bearing No. 256/222/164/112/84/43/30 (13-14), under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. Act in which the area of 0.029 hectare of land was quashed from Gata No. 330 min.

¶11

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the revisionists confined his prayer only to the punishment awarded by trial court as well as the appellant court and to the benefits of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders. It is submitted that learned trial court sentenced the revisionists for three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 198 Ka (2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and looking into the circumstances of the case, they were given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Against the aforesaid order, the revisionists filed Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2016 which was partly allowed and thereby confirmed the sentence of three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each awarded to the revisionists while setting aside the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. It was also directed to the revisionists to appear before the trial court to serve out the sentence awarded to them. It is further submitted that the State did not file any appeal against the judgment of trial court dated 30.06.2016, hence, there was no occasion for the appellate court to set aside the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act awarded to them. It is also submitted that learned appellate court neither invoked the provisions of Probation of

¶12

Offenders Act nor the provisions under Section 360 Cr.P.C. while sentencing the accused-revisionists. Learned appellate court has not given any specific reason why the present accused are not given the benefit of above mentioned provisions. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned appellate court suffers from serious illegality as the order of learned appellate court is violative of provisions under Section 361 Cr.P.C., therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside.

¶13

Section 361 Cr.P.C. is read as under:-

¶14

"361. Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases -- Where in any case the Court could have dealt with

¶15

(a) an accused person under section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or

¶16

(b) a youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so."

¶17

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State did not dispute the fact that accused-revisionist is a first time offender and was not previously convicted in any other case and the time period which has lapsed since the date of incident, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act can be granted in this case.

¶18

From the perusal of the both the impugned judgments, it transpires that the learned trial court awarded the revisionists simple imprisonment of 3 months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and looking into circumstances and gravity of the punishment,

¶19

he was awarded the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act but the learned appellate court misread the judgment of learned trial court and confirmed the sentence of three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each to the revisionists while setting aside the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and also directed to the revisionists to appear before the trial court to serve out the sentence awarded to them.

¶20

In view of the facts and circumstances and considering the scope of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and the time period which has elapsed since the date of occurrence, the present revision is allowed . The order dated 25.04.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act / Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2016 is set aside while the order dated 30.06.2016 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate / Sub District Magistrate, Nawabganj, Barabanki in Criminal Case No. 6/10/15 in Crime No. 98/12, under Sections 198 Ka (2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is upheld.

¶21

It is evident from the fact of the case that trial court directed the revisionists to execute PB before the Probation Officer on 30.06.2016 and thereafter, seven years have been elapsed. It is provided that if there is no case registered against the present revisionists within one year from the date of order of Juvenile Justice Board, he need not to execute PB for the prospective years.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.8.2023 S. Shivhare

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh and Anr. 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

Vikas Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

State of U.P. Prin. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Vs M/S Govind Industries Rajapur Lakhimpur Khiri Thru. Director Manish Kumar Gupta

Anoop Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kishan Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Omkar Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Ram Lal Vs State of U.P.