Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 22 January, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010182612012
2025:GAU-AS:632
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./417/2012
MEHER ALI
S/O LT. GHUTU SK. R/O VILL- FALIMARI, P.S. LAKHIPUR, DIST. GOALPARA,
ASSAM,
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
2:MR. NAZRUL ISLAM
S/O LT. AMZAD HUSSAIN
3:MR. SAHAJAHAN ALI @ LALTU
S/O TAHER ALI
4:MR. AJIBAR RAHMAN
S/O LT. ABDUL KAYAM ALL ARE R/O VILL- FALIMARI
P.S. LAKHIPUR
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A BHATTACHARYA, MS.D DUTTA,MR.T J MAHANTA,MS.P
BHATTACHARYA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.M R ISLAM, MR. P SAIKIA (LEGAL AID COUNSEL FOR R-2
& 3),MR.H R A CHOUDHURY,MR.R ISLAM,PP, ASSAM,MR.J ISLAM
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
22.01.2025
1. Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.
K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. P
Saikia, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. The present criminal petition under Section 482/397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is filed assailing a part of judgment dated 14.02.2012 passed in
G.R. Case No. 293/2008 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Goalpara, whereby, though the respondents were convicted for commission of
offence under Section 384/34 IPC, however, the learned Magistrate granted
benefit to them under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
3. The grant of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, is under challenge
before this Court.
4. This Court has duly perused the judgment as well as the statement of the
witnesses adduced by the prosecution.
5. It is by now well settled that Act, 1958 is a milestone in progress of modern
liberal trend of reform in the field of Penology. It is the result of recognition of
the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual
offender than to punish him. It was also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Ved Prakash Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1981 1 SCC 447, that
sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a
routine or mechanical prescription acting on hunch. The Trial Court should collect
necessary material to award a just punishment in circumstances. It was further
Page No.# 3/4
held that the social background and the personal factors of the crime doer are
very relevant in this regard.
6. In the case of Sita Ram Paswan Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2005
SC 3534, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles for exercise of
discretionary power under the Act and the consideration required. The Hon’ble
Apex Court opined that while exercising the discretionary power under the Act,
1958, the Courts are to consider the circumstances of the case, the nature of
offence and the character of the offender. While considering the nature of
offence, the Court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the
impact which the offence had on the victim. It was concluded by the Hon’ble
Apex Court that the benefit available to the accused under Section 4 of the Act,
1958 is subject to the Limitation embodied in the provision and the word ‘may’
clearly indicates that the discretion is vested with the Court whether to release
the offender in exercise of power under sections 3/4 of the Act, 1958, having
regard to the nature of the offence, the character of the offender and overall
circumstances of the case.
7. It was further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that such power can be
exercised by the Court even at the appellate or revisional stage or also by the
Apex Court hearing appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
8. Now coming to the case in hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner may be
correct in arguing that while granting the benefit under the Probation of
Offenders Act, to the accused person, the learned trial Court had not specifically
recorded his reason of satisfaction to grant such benefit. However, this Court is
not inclined at this stage to set aside such determination and to remand the
matter back to the learned trial Court as urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and it is the considered opinion of this court that ends of justice would
be made, if the court exercise its power and revisit the material and to see
Page No.# 4/4
whether there are reasons available for grant of such benefit.
9. This court therefore perused the materials. After consideration of the material
and the circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that admittedly it was
concluded that the respondents are not members of any terrorist organization
and the circumstance of the case under which the offences are committed and
their behavior and nature of the offence are also considered. From the material,
it is seen that the petitioners were unarmed, they demanded some money and
were caught by the police. From the material, they cannot be termed as graded
criminals and while taking realistic view of the gravity of the offence and the
impact which the offence had on the victim more particularly that the actual
extortion did not happen rather the respondents were arrested before they could
extort the money, this court is of the view that the learned trial court had rightly
granted benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act and therefore, this is not a
fit case to interfere with the impugned decision inasmuch as it cannot be said the
impugned decision is vitiated by patent illegality or defect.
10. Accordingly, the present criminal petition stands dismissed. Returned back the
LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_1]
Source link