SHAKEEL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. For offence under Section 411, I. P. C. the learned Magistrate convicted the revisionist and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months. It appears from the judgment of the learned Magistrate that first offender benefit was claimed but was refused only on the ground that the offence under Section 411, I. P. C. was wholly proved. The learned lower appellate Court confirmed that sentences and did not consider why the revisionist should not be granted first offences benefit. All that the learned lower appellate Court said was but the learned Magistrate had already taken lenient view.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the judg ments of the two Courts below. I am of the opinion that this revision has no force on the point of conviction. So far as sentence is concerned, both the lower Court ignored the principles that short term sentences do not serve any useful purpose rather they expose the convict to hardened criminals in jail. Both the Courts below had no justified reasons in refusing first offender benefit to the revisionist. There is no material on record to show that the revisionist is a previous convict. Hence at this very stage after hearing the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A G. A. I allow this revision in part and set aside the sentence of the revisionist. He is granted first offender benefit under Section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act, on his furnishing personal bond and sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, for his good behaviour and maintaining peace for one year. During the period of proba tion the revisionist shall not be under the supervision of the probation officer.