Allowed

Sri Pyaru @ Mahamad Ibrahim v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Aug 2023CRL.RP/363/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal revision petition filed by an accused who was granted probation by the Magistrate. The Court set aside the Sessions Judge's order sentencing him without hearing or providing reasons, thereby restoring the Magistrate's order granting the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; impugned order of Sessions Judge set aside regarding the petitioner; order of Magistrate granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act restored.

Sri Pyaru @ Mahamad Ibrahim Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:31183 CRL.RP No. 363 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 363 OF 2015

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. PYARU @ MAHAMAD IBRAHIM, S/O LATE USMAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NEAR SHAADI MAHAL, CHICKMAGALURU TOWN, CHICKMAGALURU-78.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP .K.C, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ALUR POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-01

¶10

Digitally signed by RENUKAMBA K G

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.7.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.76/2013 AND DATED 9.8.2012 PASSED BY THE C.J. AND J.M.F.C., ALUR IN C.C.NO.394/2008 AND ACQUIT THE PETR. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 457 AND 380 OF IPC.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:31183 CRL.RP No. 363 of 2015

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This revision is filed by the revision petitioner/accused No.1 challenging the order of sentence passed in Crl.A.No.76/2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan, dated 31.07.2014.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

¶21

The allegations against accused is that on 25.09.2006 and 26.09.2006 during night hours at about 2.30 a.m., the accused have committed theft in Kenchamba Temple situated in Harihalli Village to the tune of Rs.3,739/- and a complaint was lodged in this regard. Subsequently, the accused were chargesheeted in CC.No.394/2008 before the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Court, Alur.

¶22

After the trial, the learned Magistrate convicted both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 & 380 r/w 34 of IPC. However, he called report of the Probation Officer and after considering the report and hearing both the parties, he exercised his power by admitting the

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:31183 CRL.RP No. 363 of 2015

¶25

petitioners on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short ‘PO Act’).

¶26

This order of granting benefit of the PO Act to the accused was challenged by the State before Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.A.No.76/2013. The learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order of extending the benefit of PO Act to the accused and convicted them by imposing sentence of imprisonment as well as fine. This order is being challenged in this revision by accused No.1.

¶27

It is evident from the records that the conviction

¶28

order is not challenged by both the accused. Both the accused were granted benefit of the PO Act by the learned Magistrate and only the State has challenged the order of extension of the benefit of the PO Act. However, the accused were unrepresented before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge without providing any legal aid or appointing an Amicus Curiae proceeded to pass an order against them, which is improper. Even he has not heard the accused on the quantum of sentence.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:31183 CRL.RP No. 363 of 2015

¶31

Considering the merits, it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge has considered that accused No.2 was a habitual offender and was convicted earlier and hence, he has reversed the said finding of extending the benefit of the PO Act to accused No.2. But his order does not disclose as to what are the grounds for reversing the findings so far as it relates to accused No.1. He has not even bothered to hear the accused in this regard and hence, the entire approach of the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous and perverse. Without hearing the accused he has pronounced the sentence which is also improper.

¶32

The learned Magistrate after conviction has called report of the Probation Officer and the report of the Probation Officer disclose that accused No.1 i.e., the revision petitioner herein was aged about 65 years in 2012 and was working as a coolie in the coffee estate. It is also reported that he was an uneducated person and he has attended the Court for nearly more than four years and he has good conduct. Considering this aspect, the learned Magistrate has given benefit of the PO Act to the revision petitioner-accused No.1. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider this aspect and without

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:31183 CRL.RP No. 363 of 2015

¶35

providing any opportunity to accused No.1-revision petitioner herein, he pronounced the sentence and no reasons were given for imposing sentence on accused No.1 ignoring the provisions of PO Act. Hence, the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge so far as it relates to accused No.1-revision petitioner is unsustainable and calls for interference of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The revision petition is allowed.

¶38

The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.76/2013 so far as it relates to accused No.1/revision petitioner herein, is set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate of extending the benefit of the PO Act to revision petitioner, stands restored.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri Pyaru @ Mahamad Ibrahim v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pyaru @ Mahamad Ibrahim v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narasimharaju H Vs R. Govindegowda

Sri. Basavaraju B Gundenahalli Vs Yogesh H.L.

Mr Annu Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt R Uma Shivaramaiah Vs Smt S H Leelavathi

C N Suresha Vs H S Rukmangadha

Kumar @ Giri Vs State of Karnataka