CHUDAMAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. The applicant was the accused in Regular Criminal Case No. 1 of 2006, which was decided by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) (Railways), Bhusawal. The learned Magistrate convicted the applicant of an offence punishable under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The applicant appealed to the Court of Sessions, but the Court of Sessions maintained the conviction and only reduced the sentence imposed upon the applicant, to rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) Mrs. Sabahat Kazi, the learned Counsel for the applicant, in the course of hearing of the Revision Application, submitted that, she was not challenging the order of conviction, but what she was seeking was that, the applicant be given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [For short, "the Act"]. Since she had made out some grounds for considering the grant of benefit of the provisions of the Act, to the applicant, it was thought fit to call for a report from the Probation Officer. Accordingly, report has been submitted by the Probation Officer. The same is taken on record. I have carefully gone through the same.

(3.) After his appeal was dismissed, the applicant remained in custody for a period of about 10-12 days.