IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:8.7.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.No.1027 of 2007 K.Dhandapani .... Petitioner/Complainant vs. 1.The State. Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Police Station, Chidambaram 2.Thillai Govindan .... Respondents Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 9.5.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, in S.T.C.No.330 of 2007. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vasudevan For Respondent NO.1 : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,G.A. O R D E R Challenging and impugning the order dated 9.5.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, in S.T.C.No.330 of 2007, this criminal revision case is focussed. 2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus: (a) Consequent upon the complaint filed by the revision petitioner herein, namely, Dhandapani, the Magistrate referred it under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the Police for registering the FIR and investigate into the crime. Whereupon, the police registered the case as against the accused for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC. After investigation, the police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Before the Magistrate, the accused pleaded not guilty, whereupon, trial was conducted and ultimately, the Magistrate recorded the following conviction and imposed the sentence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Case No. Offence Punishment STC No.330 of 2007 294(b) IPC Fine of Rs.100/- in default,simple imprisonment for one week 323 IPC Fine of Rs.500/- in default, simple imprisonment for five weeks 3. The de-facto complainant being not satisfied with the quantum of punishment awarded by the Magistrate, preferred this revision by pointing out that the conduct of the accused in committing the crime cannot be lightly viewed and as such, severe punishment is warranted. 4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of the correct provisions of law in imposing the sentence by the learned Magistrate. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would reiterate the grounds of revision and highlight that for the offences committed by the accused, the total fine of Rs.600/- imposed is on the lower side and the punishment should be deterrent, incommensurate with the nature of the offence, then only the persons having similar criminal propensity and attitude would not commit such crimes. 6. At this juncture, I would like to recollect Section 361 of Cr.P.C. and it is extracted hereunder for ready reference. "Sec.361.Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases – Where in any case the Court could have dealt with- (a) an accused person under Section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or (b) a youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, but has not done so, it shall record in its judgement the special reasons for not having done so."(emphasis supplied) 7. The learned Magistrate, before imposing sentence should record the reasons for not invoking Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. But in this case, the Magistrate has not done so, presumably on the ground that imposition of fine in his discretion would met the ends of justice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. At this juncture, I recollect the common or garden principle of penological proposition that when an accused, without contesting the matter, pleads guilty, the Court should be lenient. In commensurate with the same, the lower Court imposed the fine of Rs.100/- for the offence under Section 294-b and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC. In such a case, I could see no infirmity in the sentence imposed by the lower Court. In fact, considering the nature of the injury, I am of the opinion that no interference with the order passed by the lower Court is warranted in the revision, as there is no perversity or non-application of law on the part of the lower Court Judge. There is no merit in the revision and the same is dismissed. msk Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram 2.-do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Caddelore. 3. The Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Police Station, Chidambaram. 4. The Public prosecutor, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to Mr. R. Vasudevan advocate SR.30168. Crl.R.C.No.1027 of 2007 VSV(CO) EU 27.7.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/