2022 (11) TMI 1084 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Probation for First-Time Offender, Emphasizes Rehabilitation

The Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Court to grant probation to respondent no. 2, who had no prior criminal record and fulfilled the conditions ... Dishonor of Cheque - harasement by non-payment of rent - Grant of benefit of probation - section 138 of Negotiable Instruments, Act, 1881 - HELD THAT:- It emerges that the petitioner who is the original complainant under Section 138 of NI Act, 1888 is only aggrieved by the fact that instead of upholding the order on sentence, also while upholding the order on conviction, the Appellate Court had shown undue leniency in the present case and the benefit of probation could not have been extended to respondent no 2 as he had harassed him by non-payment of rent. Release of respondent no. 2 on probation - HELD THAT:- There is no bar in extending the said benefit in a case under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments, Act, 1881. There is no reason in the present case to deny the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 Cr.P.C. to the respondent no. 2. The learned Appellate Court did not commit error in holding that respondent no. 2 had no criminal antecedents. The conduct of the respondent no. 2 in the present case was duly taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court and accordingly conditions were imposed for availing the benefit of probation. As per the impugned order, respondent no. 2 was directed to pay compensation to the petitioner to a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. which has been duly paid. The period of probation as per impugned judgment dated 14.03.2018 has already been undergone by respondent no. 2 and during the said period, no report had been submitted by Probation Officer to show that there was any violation of the conditions which were imposed upon respondent no. 2 by the Appellate Court - there is no infirmity or perversity in the findings of the learned Appellate Court while extending the benefit of probation to respondent no. 2, and thus, need no interference. Petition dismissed. Issues:Petition challenging grant of probation to respondent no. 2 after conviction under Section 138 of NI Act.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the judgment granting probation to respondent no. 2 after being convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Trial Court had convicted respondent no. 2 and sentenced him to two months' imprisonment and a compensation of Rs. 80,000. The Appellate Court partly set aside the sentence and granted probation to respondent no. 2, which the petitioner challenged.2. The petitioner argued that respondent no. 2, a tenant, was in illegal possession of the petitioner's property for 36 months, causing financial hardships. Respondent no. 2 delayed vacating the property and did not pay arrears of rent, totaling approximately Rs. 5,22,000, and maintenance charges of Rs. 61,435. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Court overlooked these facts.3. Respondent no. 2's counsel argued that the compensation amount of Rs. 80,000 was paid to the petitioner, and the Appellate Court rightly granted probation due to respondent no. 2's clean antecedents. The counsel alleged the petition was filed with mala fide intentions and requested its dismissal.4. The Court examined Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It cited Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing a lenient view while considering the offender's conduct and surrounding circumstances. The Court also referred to Dilshad Ahmad v. State (NCT of Delhi) to support granting probation based on the nature of the offense and the offender's character.5. Considering the philosophy behind the P.O. Act, the Court observed that the Act aims at reforming offenders rather than solely punishing them. It found that the Appellate Court rightly granted probation to respondent no. 2, who had no criminal antecedents, and imposed conditions for probation, including paying the compensation, which was fulfilled. The Court concluded that the Appellate Court's decision was justified, and there was no need for interference.6. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, stating it lacked merit, as there was no infirmity in the Appellate Court's decision to grant probation to respondent no. 2.