JAI GOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of the following criminal revisions, which are directed against the judgment dated T-8-1974 of the Sessions Judge. Chandigarh:

(2.) THE prosecution case is that Jai 'gopal petitioner was in custody of C. I. A. Staff. Chandigarh in connection with a case under Section 379. Indian Penal Code, when on interrogation he made a disclosure statement on 26-5-1972 in the presence of Hari Singh and Wasdev to the effect that he had sold several bicycles to various persons at Nalagarh, Kalka, Surajpur and other places and could get the same recovered. As a result of this disclosure statement, Jai 'gopal petitioner got recovered stolen cycles in each of those cases. Six separate oases under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, were registered against him and separate challans were filed against him. He did not plead guilty to the -charge in all these cases. However, during the trial he made statements in all these six cases admitting the charge to be correct and in each of these six cases he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to Pav Rupees 200/- as fine ,and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved. Jai Gopal filed Criminal Appeals Nos. 167. 168, 169, 170, 171 and 172 of 1974 in the Court of Sessions Judse, Chandigarh to set aside his convictions arid sentences in those cases. Since all these oases arose from one disclosure statement, the Sessions Judge disposed of all these six appeals bv one judgment recorded in Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1974. The learned Sessions Judge held that Jai Gopal was rightly convicted and sentenced and he dismissed all his appeals with the modification that out of the fine if paid a sum of Rs. 100/- in each case should be paid as compensation to the persons. ' whose cycles were stolen in these -cases. Thereafter. Jai Gapal filed these six criminal revision ipetitions Nos. 838 to "843 of 1974. These revisions were admitted as-regards sentence only bv mv order dated 12-9-1974. Notice was issued to the respondent for today.

(3.) MR. S. K. Plpat. the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the age of the petitioner Jai Gopal was less than 2! years and, therefore, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, sentence of imprisonment could not be awarded to him and the same may, therefore, be set aside.