STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BALU GENA SARVADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These ten respondents along with four others were prosecuted on allegations of having committed the offences punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, Section 326 of the IPC, Section 504 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, as also the offences punishable under Section 143 of the IPC, Section 147 of the IPC and Section 148 of the IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Solapur, after holding a trial, found the original accused nos.2, 6, 10 and 12 not guilty and acquitted them. The respondents were convicted of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. They were acquitted of the other offences. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, however, instead of sentencing the respondents, granted them the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act (P.O.Act) and directed them to be released on their entering into a bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/ for a period of 2 years, as contemplated under Section 4 of the P.O.Act. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge in granting the benefit of the provisions of the P.O.Act to the convicted respondents, the State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal purportedly under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code).

(2.) I have heard Shri Deepak Thakre, the learned APP for the State. I have heard Shri Ujwal Agandsurve, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Whether the present appeal under Section 377 of the Code is maintainable, is extremely doubtful, to say the least. When the respondents have been granted the benefit of the provisions of the P.O.Act, actually, no sentence has, yet, been imposed upon them. Therefore, there should be no question of inadequacy of the sentence or the enhancement thereof. Infact, the proper course for the State ought to have been to file an appeal as contemplated under Section 11(2) of the P.O.Act.