Hira Lal @ Vicky Vs. State

.....convict and it was observed that neither he wielded weapon or did he robbed off the victim - he had committed offence punishable with seven years or less of imprisonment and had already served a judicial custody of more than two years - on the facts of case, it was ruled that the sentence and the fine was to be set aside though the conviction was maintained - divorce by mutual consent personal presence of parties exempted power of attorney to dissolve the marriage the special power of attorney in favour of one mr. lal babu tiwari was executed by the petitioner (husband) to appear before the court and testify about the contents of the petition. the petitioner has signed the petition before indian consulate high commission of india in uk under section 3(2) of the diplomatic and consular officers (oaths and fees) act, 1947 under which the documents do not require any further evidence.[para 3] if both the parties, by way of affidavits or through counsel, state that they are married, and are able to produce proof of the marriage and that they have been living separately and have not been able to live together for the prescribed period, then there can be no reason as to why the court should not record its satisfaction as envisaged under section 13-b(2) of hindu marriage act, despite the fact that parties had not appeared in person and pass a decree for divorce.[para 6] where the parties are living far away from the jurisdiction of the court competent to dissolve the marriage, the parties after filing their affidavits can appoint attorneys to act on their behalf. attorney is competent to act on behalf of the principal on the basis of power of attorney executed by the principal. the courts have been allowing attorneys to file the petition, to withdraw the petition, to carry on proceedings in the court on behalf of their principal in all other cases. the attorney can also act in matrimonial cases as per instructions of their principle. the court can take..........the time of commission of offence. he is also a first convict. admittedly he had neither wielded the weapon nor robbed off the victim. the concept of releasing a person who is 21 years of age on probation arises out of reforming youthful offenders who are first convicts and commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of 7 years, such offenders have to be necessarily granted probation as such offenders if kept in the company of hardened criminals, there is likelihood of their turning into obdurate criminals. releasing of such convict on probation always keeps him on the tenterhook as he is always conscious of the fact that if he indulges in any criminal activity during the period of probation, no more option is left with the court than to send him to jail for serving sentence.3. in view of the fact that the appellant is a first convict and was below 21 years of age and has committed an offence which is punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less, he is entitled to benefit of section 360 cr.p.c. moreover he has already remained in judicial custody for approximately two years which is likely to serve as a dampner for his future activities.4. in the result, conviction is maintained and the sentence of imprisonment and fine is set aside. the appellant shall be released on probation for a period of one year on entering into a bond of rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and shall appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime shall keep peace and be of good behavior.appeal is dismissed with modified sentence.