SARADHAKAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question that has been raised by Mr. G.N. Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months imposed on the petitioner, who stood trial for commission of an offence under S.324 of the Indian Penal Code, is lethally infected due to the failure of the courts below to apply to the petitioner the provisions contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which has come into force in this State, in some districts with effect from 1-12-1962 and rest with effect from 1-9-1966 and their unawareness of the mandate contained in S.361 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The incident was a simple one. On a village street the mother of the petitioner and the wife of one Srikar Bhoi entered into a quarrel over some differences among children. Srikar advised his wife to return home forthwith. It is allowed that the petitioner dealt blows on the legs of Srikar. There was an FIR and investigation by the police. At the trial on the charge-sheet witnesses were examined and the magistrate believed the prosecution version. The petitioner was convicted under S.324 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appeal was of no avail.

(3.) Mr. Mohapatra initially though assailed the conviction, ultimately drew attention to the provisions contained in the Probation of Offenders Act and S.361 of the Cr.P.C. and urged that the sentence was vitiated for non-compliance with the provisions contained in S.361 of the Code. He even went to the extent of submitting that the courts below were innocent of the provisions contained in the Probation of Offenders Act and S.361 of the Code. He submitted that where there has been much advance in the field of penology, in the attitude of the society, in the prescription of the law vis-a-vis an offender, the courts should not lag behind and administer justice under the criminal jurisdiction in a mechanical and heartless fashion.