ADAPA HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Tenali, under section 411, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. A revision was filed against that order but that was dismissed by Umamaheswaram, J. It is represented to me that Umamaheswaram, J., made some observations, in dismissing the revision, that the proper course was for the petitioner to approach the Sub-Magistrate for making an order under section 562 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. But, there is no record of any such observations. The petitioner filed an application for releasing him on probation of good conduct to the successor of the Sub-Magistrate, who sentenced him to three months' rigorous imprisonment. The Sub-Magistrate dismissed it on the ground that he was not competent to revise the previous order made by his predecessor. The above revision has been filed against that order.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under section 562 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, is entitled to have an order in his . favour releasing him on probation. Section 562 (1) reads :

(3.) Under this section, an offender can be released on probation only before he is sentenced to any punishment, for the section says that instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, the Court may direct that he be released on his entering into a bond to appear, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In the present case, the Magistrate did not exercise his power under section 562 (1) but sentenced him to imprisonment. Thereafter his power to make an alternative order was exhausted. The order of the lower Court is correct and the revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed.