Granting Co-Accused Benefit U/s. 4(1) Probation Of Offenders Act And Denying It To Others For Same Offence Is Unreasonable: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court observed that when all the accused persons have been found guilty of committing the same offences, granting benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to one of them and denying the same benefit to the others is unreasonable.
The Court partially allowed a Revision challenging a judgment convicting the Revisionists under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Revision was filed against the judgment that upheld the Trial Court's decision convicting the Revisionists but denying them the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (the Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi remarked, “The trial Court has merely stated that the co-accused Shiv Pyari is granted the benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and keeping in view the nature of the offence, the revisionists are not entitled to the same benefit. When all the accused persons have been found guilty of committing the same offences, granting benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to one of them and denying the same benefit to the revisionists keeping in view the nature of the offence appears to be unreasonable.”
Advocate Ashutosh Shukla represented the Revisionist, while GA Vijay Kumar Tiwari appeared for the Opposite Party.
The Trial Court sentenced the Revisionists to one year of simple imprisonment and imposed fines under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Additionally, six months of simple imprisonment were imposed under Sections 323 and 504 IPC. A co-accused was however granted the benefit of the Act.
The Revisionists argued that they were first offenders with no criminal history and claimed they were denied the same benefit arbitrarily. They contended that the trial court failed to provide cogent reasons for granting probation to one co-accused while denying it to others, even though all accused were convicted for the same offences.
The High Court reviewed the case in light of Section 4(1) of the Act, which empowers the Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct when appropriate. The Lucknow Bench noted that the Trial Court did not provide cogent reasons for denying the Revisionists probation while extending it to their co-accused. The impugned order merely stated the “nature of the offence” as a reason, which the Court found unreasonable.
The Court clarified that considerations like the informant’s claim that the Revisionists had not provided financial support are matters of matrimonial proceedings and do not justify denying probation under Section 4(1) of the Act.
“As the aforesaid unreasonableness in the impugned order is apparent on the face of the impugned order itself, it does not need examination of the entire record of the trial Court. Therefore, this revision is being decided without calling for the record of the trial Court,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court’s order to the extent that it denies the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the revisionists, is unsustainable in law. The other findings recorded in the impugned order have not been challenged.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Revision in part.
Cause Title: Manbodh @ Manoj & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:75107)
Revisionist: Advocates Ashutosh Shukla and Praveen Tripathi
Opposite Party: GA Vijay Kumar Tiwari