STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DEEPAK BABAJI JAGTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this matter we had asked the learned APP to verify from the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station as to what happened to the counter case i.e. whether the trial was completed and what was the judgment and whether the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act was given to the accused in that case. Today, the learned APP has filed report of the Sr.Police Inspector, Mahad City Police Station dated 12th February 2007 along with the certified copies of the papers including charge sheet and compromise application between the complainant and accused wherein the trial Court allowed compounding of the offence and acquitted the accused.

(2.) THIS appeal is filed by the State against the order of the learned 2nd Addl.Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag because even though the trial Court convicted the accused, they were ordered to be released under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(3.) HOWEVER , there is a technical flaw in the operative part of the judgment of the trial Court. The accused/respondents have been held guilty under Section 326 read with other sections of the Indian Penal Code. When similar issue was raised before us, we held on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh and another vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1973 SC 2427, that since the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable for life imprisonment, benefit of Probation of Offenders Act cannot be given. Therefore, so far as operative part of the judgment of the trial court is concerned, the same is required to be modified because, if the court found the accused guilty under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, then benefit under Probation of Offenders Act cannot be and could not have been given to the accused.