BHOODEV Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have before us two criminal revisions Nos. 1614 of 1963 and 593 of 1964.

(2.) In Cr. Rev. No. 1614 of 1963 the sole opposite party Jagdish Prasad was convicted of the offences punishable Under Ss. 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC by the I Asstt. Sessions Judge, Aligarh. The learned Judge ordered that Jagdish Prasad be put on probation for a period of two years Under Sec. 4 of the UP First Offenders' Probation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The directions as to what Jagdish Prasad was required to do to avail himself of the benefit Under Sec. 4 of the Act need not be detailed herein. The complainant Bhoodeo filed an application in revision in this Court raising the contention, inter alia, that Jagdish Prasad was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in Sec. 4 of the Act. The revision came up for hearing by brother Khare who referred to certain authorities of this Court and having found a divergence of opinion on the question, directed that the papers be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to decide the aforesaid question. The revision then came up before a Division Bench which, by order dated 7 -12 -1965, directed the record to be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench. By the aforesaid order it was also directed that this revision be connected with the other revision which is before us, viz., Cr. Rev. No. 593 of 1964.

(3.) Cr. Rev. No. 593 of 1964 arises out of a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Etah, thereby the sole Respondent Bhumiraj, aged 12 years, was, on a plea of guilty, convicted Under Sec. 376 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge gave to Bhumiraj the benefit of Sec. 4 of the Act with certain directions. The State of UP thereupon filed this revision which was referred by brother D.S. Mathur to a larger Bench which, for reasons similar to those in Cr. Rev. No. 1614 of 1963, directed the papers to be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the constitution of a still larger Bench. This is how Cr. Rev. No. 593 of 1964 is also before us.