Probation unavailable after Section 307 conviction, with remand ordered so the accused could challenge the fresh sentence.

Probation under Section 4 of the U.P. First Offenders Probation Act was held unavailable where the conviction included Section 307 IPC, so the probation order could not stand. The sentencing order was set aside, but the High Court did not impose sentence directly in revision because that would prejudice the accused persons' right to challenge a fresh sentence. The matter was therefore remanded to the trial court to pass a suitable sentence under Sections 307 and 324 IPC, preserving the appellate remedy against the new sentence.

---

---

Issues: Whether benefit under Section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act could be extended where the accused stood convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and whether the proper course was to set aside the sentence and remand the matter for passing a fresh sentence.

Analysis: The conviction included an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in respect of injuries caused to the assaulted person, and the grant of probation under Section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act was therefore not sustainable. The appropriate course, however, was not to impose sentence directly in revision, because a remand would preserve the accused persons' right to challenge the fresh sentence in appeal if so advised.

Conclusion: The benefit under Section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act was not available, the sentencing order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for passing a suitable sentence under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi: Where probation is wrongly granted after conviction for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the proper corrective course may be remand for fresh sentencing so that the accused's appellate remedy is preserved.

---