GOVINDAMMAL Vs. SENGA GOUNDER (DIED) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision -Petitioner, who was the complainant before the trial Court, is canvassing the correctness of the action of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salem Division, in releasing the Respondents -accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6, under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, after confirming the conviction of the Respondent No. 1 of an offence under Section 494, I.P.C., read with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6 under Section 494 read with S. 109. These five Respondents, along with one Vellachi (accused No. 4 since discharged, by the trial Court), were tried before the learned Additional I Class Magistrate No. II, Salem, in C.C. 120 of 1973, and convicted of the above offences on the allegation that on 23rd March, 1973 at 7 a.m. at Anaikoundanur, the first Respondent, who is the husband of the Petitioner herein, entered into a second marriage with accused -2 with the active assistance of the other Respondents, whilst his first marriage with the Petitioner was subsisting. The trial Court found all the Respondents guilty of the offences with which they stood charged and convicted them thereunder and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Respondents preferred an appeal in C.A. 110 of 1973 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, who, while confirming the convictions, released all the Respondents "under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on their each entering into a bond to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior "

(2.) THE Petitioner in this revision -petition contends that the application of the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act is most inappropriate so far as the offence of this nature is concerned and therefore that part of the order of the learned Sessions Judge should be set aside and instead they must be sentenced to imprisonment. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents does not seriously dispute the concurrent convictions made by the Courts below ,though the Respondents 2 to 5 have filed a revision petition in S R. No. 68708/74 against their convictions with a petition in Cr. MP. 1857 of 1975 for excusing the delay of 257 days in the filing the said revision petition. The said petition to excuse the delay has been dismissed by me today.

(3.) THE reasoning given by the learned Judge for invoking the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act is as follows: