2005 (4) TMI 584 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court Must Reassess Case After Supreme Court Voids Benefit Granting Without Conduct Report.

M.C.D. Versus State of Delhi and Anr.

M.C.D. Versus State of Delhi and Anr. - [2005] 4 SCC 605 Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (POB Act) to the accused respondent without calling for a report from the authorities relating to the conduct of the respondent as per Section 4 of the Act.2. Whether the High Court was correct in passing the impugned judgment in view of the fact that the respondent has been convicted in another criminal case No. 202 of 1997 by the trial Court, New Delhi.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Extension of POB Act Benefit Without Conduct Report:The appellant argued that the High Court extended the benefit of the POB Act to the accused without calling for a report from the authorities about the conduct of the respondent as mandated by Section 4(2) of the POB Act. The appellant also contended that they were not given time to file a counter affidavit on the question of sentence. The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 4(2) of the POB Act, which requires the court to take into consideration the report of the probation officer before making an order under Section 4(1). The Court cited previous judgments to reinforce that obtaining and considering such a report is essential. The High Court's failure to call for this report rendered its decision legally unsound.2. High Court's Judgment Amidst Previous Conviction:The appellant highlighted that the respondent had been convicted in another criminal case (No. 202 of 1997) by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi, which was not considered by the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's observation that there was no allegation of the respondent being a previous convict was incorrect. The respondent's failure to disclose this prior conviction amounted to withholding vital information and playing fraud on the court. The Supreme Court disapproved of this conduct and emphasized that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision to extend the benefit of the POB Act without calling for a conduct report and without considering the respondent's previous conviction was erroneous. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by the second respondent to the appellant.