UMRAO SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal arising out of the conviction and sentence of one year's RI with a fine of Rs. 100/ - (in default one month's further RI) for the offence under Section 324 IPC passed against the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sess. Case No. 69/1979 under impugned judgment dated 13 -2 -1981. Shri O.S. Lakhawat, learned Counsel for the appellant at the very outset while not challenging the conviction and the finding arrived at by the court below urged that the appellant was entitled to be released on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, or under the Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel then added that the appellant's request for grant of probation, though made, but was rejected by the court below without recording any 'Special reasons' as is envisaged Under Section 361 Cr.P.C. And thus, according to the learned Counsel, the court below committed error of lay in not releasing the accused appellant on probation.

(2.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor on the other hand, opposed to the grant of probation.

(3.) HERE I must refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bishan Deo v. State of W.B. : 1979CriLJ841 where in the Supreme Court observed that in the context of Section 360, the 'special reasons' contemplated by Section 361 must be such as to compel the court to bold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender after examining the matter with due regard to the age, character and antecedents of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. And thus, the Legislature indicated that reformation and rehabilitation of offender and not mere deterrence, are now among the foremost objects of the administration of criminal justice in our country.