UDAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of preliminary hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the revision on merit and confined his prayer for grant of probation. As such, notice of motion was issued limited to grant of probation.

(2.) IN the instant petition, the question of dealing with the petitioners under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 ( in short 'the Code') or the Probation of offenders Act, 1958 (in short Probation Act) needs to be examined. The offence, for which conviction has been rendered, is one to which Section 360 of the Code or provision of Probation Act may apply. The material before me is insufficient because the Trial Court and the Appellate court have been perfunctory in discharging its sentencing functions. The purpose of sentencing is not to lock offenders and throw away the key. I must emphasise that sentencing an accused is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical process on hunch. The Trial Court and Appellate Court should collect material necessary before awarding a just punishment in the circumstances of the case. The social background and the personal factors of the offender are very relevant although in practice Criminal Courts hardly pay attention to the social milieu or the personal circumstances of the offender. Even if Section 360 of the Code or provisions of the Probation Act are not attracted, it is the duty of the sentencing Court that with a rehabilitating and reformative approach it should collect such facts as have a bearing on punishment. In the present case virtually there is no assistance, even from the counsel for the petitioners.

(3.) IN the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.04.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala whereby petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.10,000/ - each for the commission of offence punishable under Section 12(1) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') and judgment dated 19.03.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala in appeal, whereby the conviction has been upheld, however, fine has been converted into cost of proceedings.