MUSLIM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision both conviction and sentence of revisionist Muslim for offence under Sec. 324, I.P.C. have been challenged. So far as conviction is concerned, it is based on consistent finding of two Courts below and there is no error of procedure or law calling interference. So far as the sentence of one year's R. I. and fine of Rs. 5001. are concerned, it may be mentioned that the certified copy of the statement of revisionist recorded in the trial Court under Sec. 313, Cr. P. C. On 27-7-1989 shows that the revisionist was about 19 years of age on the date of offence. Injuries found on the person of injured were an incised wound 16 cm x 2 cm on right hand and an abrasion 5 cm x 4 cm in front of right fore-arm. It appears from the judgment of the trial Court that the probation under the U.P. First Offenders' Probation Act was claimed. The trial Court refused the probation without assigning any valid reason and making only a vague statement that on the basis of age, social situation and the circumstances of the case, the accused is not entitled to probation. The learned lower appellate Court did not consider the question of granting probation to the revisionist. To my mind, after about five years of the incident, after considering the age of revisionist at the time of offence and also the injuries sustained by the injured, the revisionist Muslim has a fit case of probation under the U.P. First Offenders' Probation Act. Hence, at the very stage, I finally dispose of the revision and set aside the jail sentence and fine of the revisionist. He shall be released on probation on his furnishing two sureties and a personal bond of Rs. 3,000.00 each in the like amount for his good behaviour and maintaining peace for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. Let a certified copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the revisionist on payment of usual charges within 48 hours. Partly allowed.