HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. TARLOK SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOUR persons were jointly tried for offences made punishable under section sections 323, 324 and 325 read with section 4 of the Indian Penal Code for having, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused simple and grievous injuries to three members of the complainant party. Two of the accused persons were admittedly below 21 years of age. The trial Magistrate found them all guilty but having regard to the circumstances of the case, decided to release them on probation of good conduct under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act)'. He had apparently not found it necessary to send for the Probation Officer's report under section 6 (2) of the Act.

(2.) THE complainant felt aggrieved against the lenient view taken by the trial Magistrate and fled a revision petition. The Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, has recommended that the case should be sent back to the trial Magistrate and that he (the Magistrate) should be directed to pass a proper sentence on the accused. In his view it was Incumbent on the trial Magistrate to call for and take into consideration the Probation officer's report under sub -section (2) of Section 6 before giving the accused the benefit of section 4 of the Act. Reliance has in this connection been placed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the Supreme Court ruling in Rattan Lal v. The State of Punjab, : A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 444.

(3.) AS observed by the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhat Misra : AIR 1968 SC 647, a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides and what is of the essence of the decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein Similarly, it was observed by the Hon'ble Judges in B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry : AIR 1967 SC 1480, that a decision is binding not because of its conclusions but in regard to its ratio and the principles laid down.