1973 (9) TMI 107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Code and directed that he be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on the execution of a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 700 and with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge Jagdalpur altered the conviction of the appellant to that under Part I of Section 506 Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the trial court releasing the appellant on probation of good conduct and awarded a sentence of payment of fine of Rs. 50. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. Revision filed by the appellant against the judgment of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under Section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence." In the alternative the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that, in the absence of any cogent reasons, the Additional Sessions Judge should not have deprived the appellant of the benefit of the order under Section 4 of the probation of Offenders Act. There is, in our opinion, considerable force in the second contention advanced on behalf of the appellant. It is consequently not necessary to express an opinion on the point as to whether it was legally permissible for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to pass an order in appeal that the appellant should pay fine of Rs. 50 or in default suffer i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Probation of Offenders Act even though the appellant had been found to be guilty of the graver offence under Part II of Section 506 Indian Penal Code, the Additional Sessions Judge should not have, in our opinion, deprived the appellant of that benefit without some cogent grounds. Indeed, there was all the more reason for not depriving the appellant of the benefit of the order made under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act because the Additional Sessions Judge had partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and found him to be guilty of a lighter offence. The Probation of Offenders Act, as observed by this Court in the case of Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar , was enacted in 1958 with a view to provide for the release of of....