Chander Prakash Kakkar v. State

1. By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the orders of learned Metropolitan Magistrate and learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicting the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for offences under Sections 4521325134 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate while convicting the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the aforementioned offences granted them the benefit of Section 4 of CRL.REV.P. 32/2011 Page I of 4 2011:DHC:1985[4] the Probation of Offenders Act(in short 'the Act').

2. On a statutory appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 372IPC, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge upheld the order granting probation, however, awarded a compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the Petitioner to be given by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 states that the Respondents has already paid the compensation.

3. Now the Petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. The issue which arises in the present petition is whether the grant of probation for offences under Section 4521325134 IPC is inadequate and amounts to an illegality which warrants interference of this Court.

4. A conviction under Section 452 Cr.P.C. entails a sentence, of imprisonment for a period which may extend for a period of seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Similarly, Section 325 IPC entails a sentence of imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Thus, both these offences are covered under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act mandates the Court to consider in a case where the accused is convicted for an offence which is not punishable either life or death to be considered for probation. Section 4 of the Act is mandatory in nature. CRL.REV.P. 32/2011

5. Keeping in view the mandate of the enactment and after perusing the report of the SHO and Probation Officer, it was observed by the leamed Metropolitan Magistrate that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were of good behavior, no criminal tendency was observed in their nature. They were not reported to be associated with any ill elements. Further they were the only bread earner in their family. On an enquiry from the neighbours it was found that they were of helping nature.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bed Raj Vs. State of Utar Pradesh AIR 1955 SC 778 on the issue of enhancement of sentence has observed as under: "15. A question of a sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused person except for very strong reasons which must be disclosed on the face of the judgment; see for example the observations in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab(l) and Nar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2). In a matter of enhancement there should not be interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment. Interference is only called for when it is manifestly inadequate." Thus, in a view of the requirement of the Act having been fulfilled by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while convicting them for the abovementioned offences gave them the benefit of

7. the Section 4 of the Act and directed thern to furnish a probation bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- to maintain a good behavior throughout the period of one year. The probation bond was furnished and attested and accepted on 3'd April, 2010. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have already undergone the period of probation for one year. Even learned Addl. Sessions Judge while considering the appeal of the Petitioner under Section 372 Cr. P.C. came to the conclusion that though the releasing the Respondents under the Act was legal however the Petitioner was required to be adequately compensated. Taking into consideration Rs. 30,000/- towards mental pain and suffering; Rs. 10,000/- for loss of amenities of life; Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, nursing and medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses including interest the learned Addl. Sessions Judge awarded a compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the Petitioner to be paid by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 jointly and severely since they acted in furtherance of their common intention.

8. This compensation is not inadequate. I find no illegality in the impugned judgment warranting interference in the present petition. Petition is dismissed.

AUGUST 05, 2011'dk' A GUPTA, J.