1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.138 OF 1999 1) Prakash s/o Shankarrao Kankute Age: 26 Yrs., occu. Service, r/o Wangi Road, District Parbhani. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Nanal Peth, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. 2) Anjanabai w/o Umaji Shivbhagat Age: Major, occu. Household, Wangi Road, Parbhani. District Parbhani. .. RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SS Rathi, Adv. for Petitioner ; Mr.D.R.Korde, APP for State. Respondent No.2 served. ­­­­ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 26th August, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of parties. None for Respondent no.2 though served. 2) Based on the complaint, lodged by the 2 complainant – Anjanabai (Respondent no.2 herein), prosecution is launched against the present petitioner (original accused no.1). The matter was taken up before the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani in R.C.C.No.655/2004 and on hearing the Counsel and appreciating the evidence, by order dated 18th September, 2006, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, convicted the accused/petitioner herein for an offence under Section 325 of IPC and directed to suffer S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, i/d, S.I. for three months, while the other accused, namely, Kondabai w/o Shankaar Kankute and Daivashala w/o Milind Sable were directed to suffer S.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/­ each, i/d, to undergo S.I. for fifteen days. 3) This order was subjected before the learned Sessions Judge at Parbhani, who in Criminal Appeal No. 65/2006, by order dated 4.4.2008, partly allowed the appeal and the conviction of the petitioner/accused, for the 3 offence under Section 325 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC, was confirmed. The substantive sentence as against the present petitioner was modified to suffer sentence till rising of the Court and sentence of fine amount by the learned CJM was maintained. 4) The learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, concerning the accused nos. 2 and 3 gave benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, and they were directed to be released on their executing bond of good behaviour of Rs. 10,000/­ each for a period of one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 5) The learned Sessions Judge has indeed called for report from the Probation Officer concerning the present petitioner/accused also, wherein it was intimated that the present petitioner is educated up to M.A. and was selected as a Stenographer, in service. He has no past criminal antecedents. At the material he was working with private institution with earning of Rs.2,500/­. The learned Judge in paragraph 18 4 of the Judgment has observed, if the sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is confirmed, it will cause economic death of accused no.1/petitioner. The Counsel now informs, the petitioner is in services, placed at the border and the sentence inflicted by the learned Sessions Judge, though may be till rising of the Court, will be operating as a stigma to his service conditions and he may face departmental action. It has ramification in future. The Counsel apprehends, it may diminish prospects of the promotional avenues to the petitioner. I quite see that the concern expressed is justified, however, the nature of accusations against the petitioner/accused herein being infraction of Section 325 of IPC, not involving moral turpitude, may not come to castigate him in his service. However, in spite of these odds, the fact remains, enlarging the accused nos. 2 and 3, giving benefit in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, same parameters should have been applied to the present 5 petitioner/accused. I find the role attributed to the petitioner/accused is having given a blow to the complainant/the victim. However, for that itself will not be a mitigating circumstances to indicate that he is not entitled for the benefit, provided under the Probation of Offenders Act. The very purpose and spirit of the Act is a beneficial legislation and considering the age of the accused, to be 21 years, it was his first offence, the term of sentence provided was initially for one year and thereafter the learned Judge has treated it to be till rising of the Court, referring it being to the age, character and the antecedents of the offender, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, it was the requirement in the situation to release the petitioner/accused on probation of good conduct and the learned Sessions Judge should have, instead of sentencing him to such punishment, directed that he be released on his executing a bond or to be released on such bond as could be directed. 6 6) The conviction of the original petitioner herein though is maintained for an offence under Section 325 of IPC, however, instead of sentencing him till rising of the court, as has been done by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, the petitioner/accused shall be released on his executing a bond of good behaviour in the sum of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand) for a period of one year in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The bond to be executed before the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani within four weeks. 7) Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. Rule is partly made absolute in aforesaid terms. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv138.08