PRABHU DAYAL Vs. PURKHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition raises an important question whether the court can extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act under Section 4 without calling for a report from the Probation Officer,

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Purkha Ram was convicted by the Additional Munsiff -Magistrate, Bikaner, under Section 325 Indian Penal Code but instead of sending him to jail he was given the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter called the Act). Revision was filed by the State against the order of the Additional Munsiff -Magistrate before the Sessions Judge for releasing Purkharam on probation but that revision was dismissed. Complainant Prabhu Dayal also filed an appeal against the same order of the learned Magistrate under Section 11 of the Act and in that appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, however, ordered that accused Purkha Ram shall pay Rs. 200/ - as compensation to injured Perbhu Dayal and Rs. 50/ - shall be paid to the State Government as cost. It is against this judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, that the present revision petition has been preferred by Prabhu Dayal.

(3.) LEARNED Deputy Government Advocate supports the contention of the petitioner and relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rattan Lal v. The State of Punjab : 1965CriLJ360 which was subsequently followed by the Judicial Commissioner of Goa in State v. Naguesh G. Shet Govenkar and Anr. AIR 1970 Goa. 49.