DASAPPA AND Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure made under the following circumstances : The two petitioners were respectively Accused Nos, 1 and 3 in C. C. No. 1789 of 1962 on the file of the Second Magistrate, Bangalore, in which they were tried along with one Venkatappa (Accused No, 2) for offences punishable under Sections 437 and 380, I. P. C. All of them were convicted of both the offences and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months on each count, the sentences being made to run concurrently. The petitioners and Venkatappa filed Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 1963 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The appeal was heard by the fourth Additional Sessions Judge who acquitted Venkatappa of both the charges and the petitioners of the offence under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code. He confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and reduced the sentence to one of Rigorous Imprisonment for four months. Against this order of conviction and sentence, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 85 of 1964 which came up before me for admission on 18th February 1964. I heard Mr. Kanakasabhapathi the learned Advocate for the petitioners and passed the following order: Heard the Advocate for the petitioners. There is no substance in the points urged. Petition is rejected. On March 18, 1964 the petitioners filed the present petition stating that the petitioners were respectively aged 32 years and 17 years, that they had clear antecedents and hailed from respectable families and that they should be given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) Mr. Kanakasabhapathi has appeared for the petitioners. He submitted that it was through oversight that he could not make his submissions on the question of sentence in the light of the provisions of the Act at the time when he argued the revision petition and that the Court should consider this new point to secure the ends of justice under the inherent powers conferred by Section 561A of the Code, Mr. Shirgurkar the learned Government Pleader urged that the order dismissing the revision petition after hearing the Advocate for the petitioners was a final order in the matter and that this Court had no jurisdiction to review that order. Both the Advocates have relied upon certain decisions in support of their respective arguments,

(3.) Section 561A of the Code reads thus: