Jirakhan Chandrakar Vs State

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.13/86 of 2000 confirming the order of conviction and sentence awarded in SC No.43/11 of 1999 by the learned CJM-Cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuapada on the grounds stated.

¶17

Mr. Paikray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not released on probation of good conduct for having not been able to receive a report from Probation Officer as by then no such officer was posted at Nuapada. The further submission is that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for 72 days and having not received any such probation report, he has been directed to undergo a sentence of two months RI with fine of Rs.300/- for

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

the offence under Sections 324 IPC with a set off the detention period in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the petitioner has also been directed to pay a fine of Rs.200/- only in respect of the offence under Section 341 IPC.

¶20

The petitioner faced the trial in connection with SC No.43/11 of 1999 and was convicted as such and the appeal was filed and was dismissed confirming the order of conviction and sentence.

¶21

The challenge to the impugned judgment confirmed in appeal is to the effect that the petitioner should have been allowed to go on probation instead of a sentence awarded. Merely, for the reason that no probation officer was posted at Nuapada, the contention of Mr. Paikray, learned counsel is that the learned court below could not have sentenced the petitioner.

¶22

Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State submits that the learned Court below has not committed any error or illegality in confirming the order of conviction and sentence.

¶23

Originally, the petitioner was made to face trial for an offence under Section 307 IPC, however, he has been convicted under Sections 324 and 341 I.P.C. From the impugned judgment of the learned CJM-Cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuapada, it is made to understand that by then, since the Probation Officer was not posted at Nuapada, he could not consider release of the petitioner on probation. Having regard to the nature of allegations against the petitioner, who was by then 21 years old and him having remained in custody for about 72 days, the Court is of the view that he should have been

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

allowed to go on probation after due admonition. Of course, the learned court below was of the view that the petitioner should be kept under observation in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act (hereinafter referred to ‘the P.O. Act’) but having regard to the sentence awarded of two months with fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C., the Court is of the view that he should have been directed to be released on probation after admonition in terms of Section 4(1) of the P.O. Act.

¶26

Since, the argument is confined to the plea that the petitioner should have been granted the relief under the P.O. Act, the order of conviction is confirmed, however, he is allowed to go on probation after admonition, as the Court is of the view that such a course of action would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice instead of directing him to undergo the sentence at this distant point of time and accordingly, it is directed.

¶27

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.13/86 of 2000 is hereby modified with a direction to the learned CJM-Cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuapada to release the petitioner under probation after due admonition in connection with SC No.43/11 of 1999.

¶28

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACKBalaram Date: 20-Sep-2025 15:58:43

¶31

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Jirakhan Chandrakar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jirakhan Chandrakar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Modi Vs M/S L.M. Fashions Pvt. Ltd, Cuttack

Pintu Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Bishnu Charan Behera Vs State of Odisha

Arati Kumari Rout Vs State of Odisha

Dhubei Patel Vs Lochan Patel

Upendra Rana @ Upendra Kumar Rana Vs Veenit Bharadwaj, IAS