Allowed

Safiqur Rahaman v. Md. Najir Ali and Ors.

Tripura HC7 Aug 2017Crl.A./9/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revenue Court heard an appeal challenging the lower appellate court's conversion of compensation liability under CrPC to probation compensation, releasing two respondents. The Court held the appeal outside Section 372's proviso but converted it to a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397(1) CrPC in the interest of substantive justice.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal converted to Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397(1) CrPC; Registry to register and admit on 16.08.2017.

Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No	Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature
07.08.2017	CRL. A 09 OF 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Under proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, this appeal has been filed as no sentence of imprisonment has been imposed on the respondents No.1&2 by the first appellate court. By the impugned judgment dated 27.01.2017 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2017 the first appellate court has maintained the conviction but the respondents No.1&2 have only been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- each under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act to compensate the victims for the incarceration suffered by them for the convicts. The same has been done by order of modification of the order of sentence dated 08.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar in case No.PRC(SP)10/2015 whereby the respondents No.1&2 were sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Section 448 read with Section 34 IPC, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, i.d. to suffer simple imprisonment for another one month and further for conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The respondents No.1&2 were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, i.d. to suffer simple imprisonment for another one month. It was observed by the trial court that the fine money if realised shall be paid to the victims namely, Safikur Rahaman, Mst. Aleya Begam and Mst. Hachna Begam as compensation as per the provisions of Section

Noting by Officer or Serial Date
Advocate No

Office notes, reports, orders or
Proceedings with signature

07.08.2017

CRL. A 09 OF 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Under proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC,
this appeal has been filed as no sentence of
imprisonment has been imposed on the
respondents No.1&2 by the first appellate court.
By
the
impugned
judgment
dated
27.01.2017 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.
16/2017
the
first
appellate
court
has
maintained the conviction but the respondents
No.1&2 have only been directed to pay
Rs.5,000/-
each
under
Section
5
of
the
Probation of Offenders Act to compensate the
victims for the incarceration suffered by them
for the convicts. The same has been done by
order of modification of the order of sentence
dated 08.09.2016 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar in case
No.PRC(SP)10/2015 whereby the respondents
No.1&2 were sentenced for commission of
offence punishable under Section 448 read
with
Section
34
IPC,
to
suffer
simple
imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-
each,
i.d.
to
suffer
simple
imprisonment for another one month and
further for conviction under Section 323 read
with Section 34 IPC. The respondents No.1&2
were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment
for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each,
i.d. to suffer simple imprisonment for another
one month. It was observed by the trial court
that the fine money if realised shall be paid to
the victims namely, Safikur Rahaman, Mst.
Aleya Begam and Mst. Hachna Begam as
compensation as per the provisions of Section

Noting by Officer or Advocate	Serial No	Date	Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature
			357(1)(b) of the CrPC. Both sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The appellate court, as it appears, in exercise of the powers under Sections 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has released the respondents No.1&2 by directing to pay compensation for the loss caused to the victims. The said compensation is recoverable, no doubt, as fine money. The release of the respondents No.1&2 and conversion of compensation payable under Section 357(1)(b) to that of Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are challenged in this appeal by the appellant. Such challenge does not come within the purview of proviso to Section 372 of CrPC. For substantive justice, this Court in exercise of its inherent power do convert this appeal in that of a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397(1) of the CrPC. The Registry shall register it as a Criminal Revision Petition and place the same on 16.08.2017for admission. JUDGE

Noting by Officer or
Advocate

Serial
No

Date

Office notes, reports, orders or
Proceedings with signature

357(1)(b) of the CrPC. Both sentences of
imprisonment
were
directed
to
run
concurrently.
The appellate court, as it appears, in
exercise of the powers under Sections 4 and 5
of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has
released the respondents No.1&2 by directing
to pay compensation for the loss caused to the
victims. The said compensation is recoverable,
no doubt, as fine money.
The release of the respondents No.1&2
and conversion of compensation payable
under Section 357(1)(b) to that of Section 5 of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are
challenged in this appeal by the appellant.
Such challenge does not come within the
purview of proviso to Section 372 of CrPC. For
substantive justice, this Court in exercise of its
inherent power do convert this appeal in that
of a Criminal Revision Petition filed under
Section 397(1) of the CrPC.
The Registry shall register it as a Criminal
Revision Petition and place the same on
16.08.2017for admission.
JUDGE

Safiqur Rahaman v. Md. Najir Ali and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safiqur Rahaman v. Md. Najir Ali and Ors.

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

Pradip Das Vs Muslim Kabarstan Suraksha Committee and Ors.

Ali Rani Deb Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Shyamal Chakraborty Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura Anganwadi Karmi O Sahayika Oikya Samiti Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tarun Choudhury Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Safiqur Rahaman Vs Najir Ali and Anr.