CHANDRAKANT RAMA SALGAONKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Bhobe waives notice on behalf of the State. By consent rule heard forthwith. The petitioner in this petition claims that he should be given the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Sessions Court heard the plea of the petitioner on that score, but rejected the same. A perusal of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act shows that before the Court considers granting or rejecting the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, the court must consider the character and antecedents of the person claiming the benefit. This material could have come to the Court if the Court had sought a Report of the probation officer. The Court proceeded solely on the footing that the petitioner herein was a employee of the establishment where he had committed theft of goods and has been convicted of the same.

(2.) THIS revision application has been admitted and finally heard only to the limited extent as to whether the petitioner will be given the benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The Session Judge proceeded on the footing that as the petitioner was an employee of the firm/establishment, he should not be given the benefit. It cannot be said that this view of the Sessions Judge before proceeding to reject the application should have antecedents. The whole idea of Section 3 is reformative in character and if the Report of the probation officer shows that the benefit should be given then and then only the Sessions Judge consider the same. However, it is incumbent on the Sessions Judge before passing any such order to call for the Report of the probation officer, more so in the case of a first-time offender.