'Unreasonable' To Grant Benefit Of 'Probation Of Offenders Act' To One Accused & Deny It To Another For Same Offence: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made this observation while dealing with a criminal revision plea filed by three accused challenging the validity of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Session Judge, Gonda, in criminal appeal and the order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Gonda, convicting them under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the D.P. Act and sentencing them to one-year simple imprisonment.

Before the Court, the submissions were confined to the extent that the trial Court had convicted and sentenced all the accused persons for the same offences. However, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, had been granted to co-accused Shiv Pyari, but the same had been denied to the revisionists without assigning any cogent reason.

It was also argued that the revisionists are also first offenders, have no criminal history, and have been implicated in the present case because of a matrimonial dispute, and proceedings for divorce are already pending.

Opposing their revision plea, the counsel for the opposite party No.2 submitted that the conduct of the revisionists did not warrant the exercise of discretion by this Court in their favour by granting them the benefit of the 1958 Act as they illtreated the informant and had neither provided due respect to her nor has the informant been provided any financial support.

Noting that the revisionists confined their argument to the extent that the trial Court had declined the benefit of the 1958 Act. In contrast, the same benefit was granted to a co-accused; the High Court observed no need to call for the trial Court's record.

“Where the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding or sentence is not under challenge and the only challenge is to the differential treatment between co-accused persons in the matter of granting benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act without assigning any cogent reason, which is apparent from a bare perusal of the impugned order itself, there is no requirement of calling for the trial Court's record,” the Court observed.

Further, the Court noted that Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, comes into play only when a person has been held guilty of committing an offence.

Thus, the Court said that as soon as the revisionists were found guilty of committing the offences mentioned above, they became eligible to claim the benefit of this provision of the 1958 Act.

The Court added that the allegation that the revisionists had not provided any maintenance or monetary support to the informant was no grounds for denying the revisionists the benefit of Section 4(1) of the 1958 Act.

Thus, finding faults with the trial court's reasoning that the co-accused is granted the benefit of the 1958 Act and the revisionists are denied the same benefit considering the nature of the offence, the High Court allowed the revision in part while modifying the order of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Gonda to the extent it denies the benefit of Section 4(1) of 1958 Act to the revisionists,

The Court further provided that in case the revisionists appear before the trial Court and furnish personal bonds and two sureties for their appearance, to receive a sentence of one year as and when called upon and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, the Court shall release them on probation of good conduct.

In case the revisionists fail to observe the aforesaid condition of furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, the benefit of this order shall not be available to them, the Court added as it disposed of the matter.

Case title - Manbodh @ Manoj And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Sectt. Lko And Another

Case citation :

Click here To Read/Download Order