Probation of Offenders Act: Orissa High Court Extends Benefit To Two Convicted ‘29 Yrs Ago’ For Violating Rice & Paddy Control Order

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy deemed it inappropriate to send the convicts to prison at such a delayed point of time and thus, observed-

“…the convicts are first time offenders and no previous conviction of the appellants has been proved against them and more than 29 years have elapsed in the meantime after conviction of the appellants and the convicts were aged about 34 and 39 years as on the date of their conviction and now they would be more than 63 and 68 years.”

Brief Facts

The two appellants, owner of a rice stock and truck driver respectively, were convicted by the trial court under Sections 7 & 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for transporting 77 bags of rice each weighing one quintal, which was in violation of clause-3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order.

They both were sentenced on 18.08.1994 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. In the same year, they preferred this appeal before the High Court impugning the aforesaid order.

Submissions of Parties

S.D. Das, Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants do not intend to challenge their conviction, rather they pray for sympathetic consideration for modification in their sentences. Accordingly, he urged the Court to modify the sentence of the convict-appellants by releasing them under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Additional Standing Counsel for the State did not oppose such prayer of the appellants.

Court’s Observations

The Court referred to a catena of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, including the judgment in Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein it emphasized the objectives behind the Probation of Offenders Act and said,

“We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved.”

The Court also placed reliance on the decision of the Orissa High Court in T. Sushila Patra v. State, (1987) SCC Online Ori 144, wherein it was held,

“There is no doubt that the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act in certain circumstances prescribed imposition of a minimum sentence and it is undoubtedly a special statute, but neither of those two conditions totally bars the discretion of the Court to grant probation to the convict either under the criminal procedure code or even under the relevant Sections of the Probation of Offenders Act.”

Having due regard for the above precedents against the backdrop of the facts of the case, the Court opined that as the convicts are first-time offenders and as more than 29 years have elapsed since their conviction by the trial court, it is unnecessary to send them behind the bars at this point of time.

It also noted that the State has also failed to produce any convincing material to show that the appellants are ‘incorrigible’ and cannot be reformed. Hence, the Court deemed it apposite to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the P.O. Act to the appellants and considered it expedient to release them on probation of good conduct.

Case Title: Hrusikesh Sahoo & Anr. v. State of Orissa

Case No.: CRA No. 297 of 1994

Judgment Dated: 9^th February 2023

Coram: G. Satapathy, J.

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. S.D. Das, Senior Counsel

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. M. Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 24