P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Parminder Khetarpal vs. State Of NCT Delhi & Anr - (High Court of Delhi) (23 Nov 2022)

Conduct of the accused is of the prime importance while granting benefit of probation

MANU/DE/4709/2022

Criminal

The present revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") against the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge, ("Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal to the extent that, Respondent no. 2 has been granted benefit of probation, and praying to uphold the order on sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.

In Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab, it was held that while granting beneficial provisions wide interpretation should be given and not a restrictive view. Similarly, while considering the nature of offence, character of the offender and his good conduct, a lenient yet rational view is to be taken by courts taking into account the surrounding circumstances. Provisions under law provide certain grounds which need to be considered before granting probation. The conduct of the accused is of the prime importance apart from other factors while deciding whether the benefit is to be given or not.

The Petitioner who is the original complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments, Act, 1881 is only aggrieved by the fact that, instead of upholding the order on sentence, also while upholding the order on conviction, the Appellate Court had shown undue leniency in the present case and the benefit of probation could not have been extended to Respondent no. 2 as he had harassed him by non-payment of rent.

As far as release of Respondent no. 2 on probation is concerned, there is no bar in extending the said benefit in a case under Section 138 of Act, 1881. There is no reason in the present case to deny the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 of Cr.P.C. to the Respondent no. 2. The learned Appellate Court did not commit error in holding that respondent no. 2 had no criminal antecedents.

The conduct of the Respondent no. 2 in the present case was duly taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court and accordingly conditions were imposed for availing the benefit of probation. As per the impugned order, Respondent no. 2 was directed to pay compensation to the petitioner to a sum of Rs. 80,000, which has been duly paid. The period of probation as per impugned judgment has already been undergone by Respondent no. 2 and during the said period, no report had been submitted by Probation Officer to show that there was any violation of the conditions which were imposed upon respondent no. 2 by the Appellate Court. Further, the allegations of him being in illegal possession of the property are of civil nature and thus create no obstacle in granting the benefit. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Court was justified in extending the benefit of probation and has rightly upheld the conviction but altered the sentence. There is no infirmity or perversity in the findings of the learned Appellate Court while extending the benefit of probation to Respondent no. 2, and thus, need no interference. Petition dismissed.

Tags : BENEFIT   PROBATION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved