KHUDI RAM MAHTO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for Petitioner does not want to press this Revision so far it relates to judgment of conviction passed by both the Courts below. He confines this Revision application only to the order of sentence.

(2.) It is submitted by Sri Mahesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for Petitioner that Petitioner has been convicted under Ss. 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that maximum punishment prescribed for both the offences are six months. It is submitted that learned S.D.J.M. while denying the benefit of under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has not given any special reason. It is further submitted that learned Appellate Court had also not given any reason for denying such benefit. Accordingly, it is submitted that order of sentence is liable to be setaside and Petitioner is entitled to be released on execution of bond as per provisions contained under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(3.) Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of judgment of S.D.J.M. as well as of Appellate Court I find that both courts had not given any special reason for denying the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the Petitioner. As per Sec. 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is incumbent upon the courts below to give special reason, if they do not want to give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the Petitioner. Thus I find material illegality in the order of sentence.