STATE OF U.P. Vs. SOVARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 03.06.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.3, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Sessions Trial No.645 of 2000 whereby and whereunder accused persons/opposite parties namely Sovaran and Vinod were found guilty for the offence under Section 324/34 IPC and were given the benefit of doubt of probation of first offender and were released on filing a personal bond of Rs.4,000/- each for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of six months.

(2.) Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act as provided by the learned trial court is erroneous and not justified in accordance with law.

(3.) It was then held that the court must construe the said word in keeping with the context and object of the provision in its widest amplitude. Here the word "expedient" is used in Section 4 of the PO Act in the context of casting a duty on the court to take into account "the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence...". This means Section 4 can be resorted to when the court considers the circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the offence, and the court forms its opinion that it is suitable and appropriate for accomplishing a specified object that the offender can be released on probation of good conduct."