STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHIKHU ABDUL BALOCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant State against the judgment dated 06.01.1996 passed by the Id. JMFC, Kodinar in Criminal Case No. 555/1991, convicting the present appellant- original accused No.1 as well as original accused No.2 for the offences punishable under section 25(1)A of the Arms Act and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and instead of awarding sentence to the accused persons, the accused were granted benefit of the provisions of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and placed them under the observations of Probation Officer for a period of Two Years and they were ordered to be released on bail on each of them furnishing a surety of Rs.5,000/ and a Bond for Good Conduct of the like amount.

(2.) Heard Id. APP Mr. Desai for the appellant State and Id. Counsel Mr. MG Pandya appearing for the respondent accused (original accused No.l). It is submitted by Id. APP Mr. Desai that the Id. Trial Judge has committed material error in granting probation to the accused persons when they were found guilty of the offence punishable under the Arms Act. The offence in question for which the accused were tried, is grave in nature and is an offence against the society and the Court should go slow in exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in it under the provisions of the Probation Of Offenders Act and/or of section 360, 361 of CrPC.

(3.) In response to this submission, Mr. Pandya has pointed out that the trial Court had granted similar benefit to the accused of one Criminal Case No.552/1991 and that order was also assailed by the State by filing Criminal Appeal No.259/1996 before this Court. This Court, while dealing with the said criminal appeal, while disposing of the same vide oral judgment/order dated 12.09.1996 (Coram: M.R. Calla,J), has observed that there is no patent illegality in granting the benefit of the provisions of the Probation Of Offenders Act to the convict accused person. It is submitted that the facts of the said criminal appeal are substantially similar to the facts of the present case.