STATE Vs. GAJANAN P NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 9th September, 1988, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satari, convicted the respondents under Sections 3 and 4, respectively, of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976, and after sentencing them give the benefit of probation as regards the substantive sentence of imprisonment.

(2.) The respondents had indeed been charged of having committed the aforesaid offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act. They pleaded not guilty, but ultimately, after the evidence was adduced, the learned Trial Magistrate held that the prosecution has brought home to the respondents the guilt, and accordingly, convicted the first respondent for an offence punishable under Section 3 and the second respondent for an offence under Section 4, both of the aforesaid Act. Thereafter observing that Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act envisage two types of punishment, viz. a fine and an imprisonment, gave the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to both the respondents as regards the sentence of imprisonment.

(3.) The State, being solely aggrieved by the benefit of probation given to the respondents, has filed this Appeal, which therefore, gives rise to the question as to whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act can be given to an offender in cases where a minimum sentence is provided in the transgressed law, and if so, whether such benefit can be given without getting a report of the concerned Probation Officer.