In a criminal revision application, the High Court at Bombay held that no disqualification attaches to a conviction if the accused benefited under Sections 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, dismissing the revision.
Criminal Revision Application dismissed.
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.
/ 1 /
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLIATION NO.233 OF 1997
Sudhakar Soma Sarode..Petitioner
(Orig.Accd.)
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
..Respondent
(Orig.Compl.)
None for the Petitioner.
Shri.U.V. Nikam PP for the State.
CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.
DATED : 08/12/2006
P.C.:-
1.None appears for the petitioner. This
criminal application is directed against the
judgment and order passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, who has confirmed the conviction
U/s.353 of IPC. Lower appellate court, giving
benefit of provisions of Section 3 of the Probation
of Offenders Act, had released him after due
admonition.
2.I have perused the judgment and order of
the lower appellate court. In my view, there is no
merit in the ground raised by the petitioner in
this application. By virtue of Section 12 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, no disqualification is
attached to the conviction if accused is given
benefit of provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act. Under these
circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with
the aforesaid order.
accordingly dismissed.
V.M. KANADE J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is merit in the petitioner's ground challenging the confirmation of conviction.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sudhakar Soma Sarode
State of Maharashtra
V.M. Kanade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court