ETTI GOUNDER Vs. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, NAMAKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is pressed only on the question of sentence. The accused revision Petitioner was found guilty of an offence under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, since he was found to be in possession of 100 and odd kilograms of sandalwood worth Rs. 5,000 and odd. The trial court upon convicting him under that Section sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 3,000. The above decisions were confirmed by the appellate Court.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner contended that the revision Petitioner was an honest man, that he committed the offence out of ignorance, that he repented for his act and that this would be a fit case for releasing him for probation of good conduct. He further submitted that in spite of the provision of the minimum punishment in the Act, there was no obstacle for releasing him under the Probation of Offenders Act and that the question is now settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ishar Das v. State of Punjab, 1972 AIR(SC) 1295. In fact, there is no reason for not invoking the Probation of Offenders Act unless it is specifically barred, merely on account of the existence of the minimum punishment. The decision whether the convicted person should be released under the Probation of Offenders Act, takes place before the stage of determining the punishment. At that stage whether the offence is punishable with minimum punishment or not, is not a relevant consideration. Only when the Court decides not to invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, and proceeds to consider what is the punishment to be meted out, the provision of minimum punishment comes into play. It is also worth noting that the punishment is only deferred and if during the period of probation, the person released becomes guilty of any other offences, he will be punished for the offence already committed and for which he has been convicted and at that time the minimum punishment will be inflicted upon him.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor upon perusing the decision of the Supreme Court did not have anything to say against the legality of releasing the revision Petitioner on probation of good conduct. In view of the circumstances pointed out by the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner, his age and the fact of being a first offender and other circumstances of the case, I find that this is a fit case for releasing the revision Petitioner or probation of good conduct. In the result, the sentence is set aside, the revision Petitioner is released upon his entering into a bond for an amount of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety for an equal amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of three years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The amount of fine already recovered shall be treated as compensation and costs as provided under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. With the above direction this revision petition is dismissed.