ABDUL QAYUM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by Special Leave against the Judgment of the Patna High Court exercising its Revisional Jurisdiction by which the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Act No.20 of 1958) (hereinafter called 'the Act') was denied to the Appeallant Qayum. The Appellant was convicted under sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The prosecution case was that on the Vijayadashmi day in 1964, Jagdish Kumar Sinha along with his friends had gone to Mahalla Pathar Ki Masjid to see the procession. He had in the pocket of his pant a purse containing Rs.56/- in currency notes. At about 1.30 a.m. when he got down from the Rickshaw and went to the pan shop to purchase pan and cigarette he discovered when he wanted to pay the price of the pan and cigarette that somebody had picked his pocket and his purse was gone. He raised a hue and cry and seeing that two boys were running, he and his friends chased them. They succeeded with the help of the members of the public in catching the Appellant who had immediately passed the money from the purse to his associate Shamim who however excaped. Both Shamim and the Appellant were convicted. It appears that before the Sub Divisional Magistrate a joint petiiton of the owner of the purse Jagdish Kumar Sinha and the Appellant for permission to compound the offence was filed under Sec. 345 (2) of the Inian Penal Code, but it is said no order seems to have been passed on it and the Appellant was convicted as aforesaid. As we have not been able to ascertain the truth or otherwise of this fact we do not express any view thereon. There is no doubt that at the time of the alleged occurrence the Appellant was said to be only 16 years of age and at the time of his conviction he would be about 18 years of age. Before the sentence was passed on him it was prayed that under sec. 6 of the Act he be released on probation and that no sentence should be passed against him. The Trial Court called for a Report from the Probation Officer in respect of both the Appellant and accused Shamim. The Probation Officer recommended that the appellant should be given the benefit under the Act which recommendation however was rejected for reasons recorded by it and he was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonmement as aforesaid. The reason given by the trial Court for not giving the benefit to the Appellant are as under:

(2.) The appeal filed against the conviction and sentence however was dismissed and his prayer for giving him the benefit under the Act was also rejected. Thereafter he filed a revision petition against his conviction and sentence in the High Court of Patna where, as appears from the judgment of that Court, the only point that was urged on the date when the revision came on for hearing the Appellant was below 20 years and the benefit of the provisions of the Act should have been given to him. The High Court after referring to the reason given by the Trial Court said that the Probation Officer had not made any recommendations for granting benefit under the Act to the other accused Shamim, in as much as he was hardened criminal and a habitual pick pocket and therefore rejected the Revision Petition as in its opinion the Trial Court was justified in not granting the benefit under the Act because of "the association of the petitioner with such a hardened criminal and a pick pocket..."

(3.) In our view neither the Trial Court, the Appellate Court, nor the High Court applied their mind to the requirement of the provision of the act. As pointed out by this Court in Rattan lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 444 "The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him". The provisions of the Act must therefore be viewed in the light of this laudable reformatory object which the legislature was seeking to achieve by enacting the legislation. The Act differentiated offenders below 21 years of age who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. It is only in the case of offenders who are below the age of 21 years and guilty of lesser offences than those punishable with death and life imprisonment that an injunction is issued to the Court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Sec.3 and Sec.4. It is also provided in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 6 that the Court shall for the purposes of satisfying itself whether it should give the offender the benefit referred to in sub-sec. (1) call for and consider a report from a Probation Officer along with any other information available to it relating to the character, physical and mental condition of the offender.