AGYAPAL SINGH Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment/order of sentence dated 23.8.76 by which the learned ASJ, Delhi convicted the appellant under Sections 411 and 467. Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.L for a period of four years and a fine of Rs. 500.00 or in default suffer further RI for six months under section 467, Indian Penal Code, and for 2 years under Section 411, IPC. The sentences were made to run concurrently under both the counts.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the State. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant on merits. His only grievance is regarding sentence imposed upon the appellant. According to the learned ASJ. the age of the appellant in 1974 when he pleaded not guilty to the charg was 27 years. The offences were alleged to have been committed on 1210.67. Therefore, the age of the appellant at the t ime of the commission of the offence would be less than 21 years. However, learned ASJ was of the view that the benefit of probation is available to an accused only if he is below 21 years at the time of awarding sentence. I think this conclusion by learned ASJ seems to be wrong. In case of VedPrakash v. State of Haryana AIR 1981 SC 643 it has been specifically held that age of the accused person is to be seen at the time of the comssion of the offence and not at the time of conviction. It was specifically found in the aforesaid case that on 2341973 when the offence was alleged to have been committed, the accused was less than 21 years of age that is why the Supreme Coutt granted the benefit of probation to the appellant in that case under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that under Section 467 of the I PC the sentence is actually imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years in addition to the imposition of fine. according to the learned counsel for the State the benefit of probation may not be available to the appellant in this case because offence under Section 467, Indian Penal Code is also punishable with imprisonment for life. I have carefully considered this argument. It may be noted that offence in this case is alleged to have been committed in 1967 i.e' about 24 years ago. The forgery is allegedly to be in respect of the affidavit which he affirmed before Sh. Ram Dhan Talwar, Advocate/Oath Commissioner for the transfer of a scooter to Mahinder Singh, co-accused who was acquilted by learned ASJ. Keeping in view the acquittal of the co-accused Mahinder Singh who was further alleged to have transferred the scootor to Sh Suresh Chand Sharma, Advocate, the lapse of 24 years and also the age of the appellant at the time of the commission of the offence, I am of the view that the offence under Section 467 Indian Penal Code in this case could not have been punishable for a period of more than 10 years and it was not the case wherein the sentence of imprisonment of life would have been awarded. Even the learned ASJ imposed a sentence of 4 years's RI only under this count upon the appellant. Therefore, I am of the view that benefit of probation in this case can be extended to the appellant and should be extended in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, instead of sentencing the appellant at once, it seems expedient to release him on probation of good conduct. I direct that the appellant be released on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 with one surety in the like amount for a period of two years to the satisfaction of the successor of the learned trial court and also to give an undertaking to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the aforesaid period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Subject to the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The personal bond and the surety bond will be furnish within a period of four weeks.