RAJU ALIAS RAJBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.11.2009/12.11.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class) Nuh, vide which, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigour imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for an offence under Section 279 IPC and also to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000 for an offence under Section 304-A. The appeal filed against aforesaid judgement and order was also dismissed vide judgement dated 01.07.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, did not argue the case on merit. However, an alternative prayer is made to release the petitioner on probation and has also offered to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the claimants of the deceased. After going through the judgements rendered by the Courts below, the learned counsel has rightly not argued on merit. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed and conviction and sentence of the petitioner is upheld. However, this Court finds no reason as to why the alternative prayer cannot be granted.

(3.) SECTION 360 of the Code relates only to persons not under 21 years of age convicted for an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, to any person under 21 years of age or any woman convicted of an offence not punishable with sentence of death or imprisonment for life. The scope of SECTION 4 of the Probation Act is much wider. It applies to any person found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. SECTION 360 of the Code does not provide for any role for probation Officers in assisting the courts in relation to supervision and other matters while the Probation Act does make such a provision. While SECTION 12 of the Probation Act states that the person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under SECTION 3 or 4 of the Probation Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to conviction of an offence under any law, the code does not contain parallel provision. Two statues with such significant differences could not be intended to coexist at the same time in the same area. Such coexistence would lead to anomalous results. The intention to retain the provisions of SECTION 360 of the Code and the provisions of the Probation Act as applicable at the same time in a given area cannot be gathered from the provisions of SECTION 360 or any other provision of the Code. Therefore, by virtue of SECTION 8 (1) of the General Clauses Act, where the provisions of the Act have been brought into force, the provisions of SECTION 360 of the Code are wholly inapplicable. Enforcement of the Probation Act in some particular area excludes the applicability of the provisions of SECTIONs 360 and 361 of the code in that Area.