RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision Application, the revision applicant questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Criminal Appeal No. 15/1999 whereby the learned Judge gave benefit of Probation of Offenders Act 1958 to the accused persons upon their executing the bond to keep peace and to be of good behaviour, provided they shall furnish surety to the extent of Rs. 10,000/each, for a period of two years. During the period of bond, the accused were directed to remain under supervision of the Probation Officer and the proposed Officer was to be intimated accordingly pursuant to the order. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

(2.) Mr. S I Jagirdar, learned Advocate for the revisionapplicant had challenged the impugned order on the ground that report of the Probation Officer was not called for by the learned Additional Sessions Judge before passing the impugned order. He submitted with reference to the ruling in MCD v. State of Delhi and Anr., 2005 4 SCC 605 that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have called for report from the Probation Officer before passing the impugned order as it was a condition precedent for release of the accused.

(3.) To counter these submissions, Mr S.V. Sirpurkar, learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 submitted that after this Revision Application was filed, there was no interim stay so as to execute the impugned order and, in fact, the Respondentsaccused had executed and observed the bond as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, the Revision Application became infructuous.