MD SYAD ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners in this case were charged with offences under Ss.147/325/324 of the Penal Code and were convicted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon under S.147 only and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months. The said sentence was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Nagaon. The present criminal revision petition under S.401 read with S.482 of the Cr. P.C. has been filed on the ground that the learned trial Court and the Sessions Judge did not consider the applicability of S.360 of the Cr. P.C. and did not record any reason for not applying the provision of S.360 of the said Act of the case of the petitioners.

(2.) Heard Mr. Kalimuddin, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Also perused the orders passed by the Courts below. It appears that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner 3 Gazi Mia was aged only about 16 or 17 years. The other three petitioners were little above 21 years. Mr. Kalimuddin, appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioner 3 Gazi Mia being 16 or 17 years of age was entitled to benefit of S.360 of the Cr. P.C. It was submitted that the other three petitioners also were entitled to the benefit of the said provision as they were convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment of a term of two years only. According to the learned Counsel, in the instant case in hand, the trial Court or the Sessions Judge did not at all consider this aspect of the matter and failed to exercise the power vested in them under S.360 of the Act. I have perused the judgement of the trial Court as well as the Sessions Judge. It appears that both the Courts below failed to consider the applicability of S.360 of the Cr. P.C. to the case of the present petitioners and did not, therefore, record any special reason for not doing so as envisaged by S.361 of the Act.

(3.) From the facts of the case, it appears that the petitioner 3 was aged about 16 or 17 years at the time of the occurrence. The other three petitioners also, though slightly above 21 years of age at the relevant time, were convicted of an offence under S.147 of the Penal Code which is punishable with imprisonment for a term of two years only. The case of the appellants, therefore, undoubtedly falls within the four corners of S.360 of the Act. The Courts below, however, did not consider their case under S.360 of the Cr. P.C.