Vaswa Nand Vs. State

Vaswa Nand vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 27, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/707624

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/707624
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Sep 27, 2001
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 318 of 1999
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

The case dealt with the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in relevance to objection by the State - The petitioner had faced the trial for 15 years and underwent some period in custody - There was no allegation of him being the previous convict - It was found on circumstances and fact unde...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279, 304-A and 338; Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Sections 4

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vaswa Nand

Advocate P.R. Thakur, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate V.K. Malik, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279, 304-A and 338; Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Sections 4
Reported In: 94(2001)DLT773

Excerpt

the case dealt with the benefit of section 4 of the probation of offenders act, 1958, in relevance to objection by the state - the petitioner had faced the trial for 15 years and underwent some period in custody - there was no allegation of him being the previous convict - it was found on circumstances and fact under sections 279, 338, 304-a of the penal code, 1860, that the petitioner being convicted of the offence was not punishable with life imprisonment - hence the petitioner deserved the benefit of probation under section 4 of the act - - having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is considered expedient to release him on probation of good conduct. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during such period and, in the meantime, the petitioner shall keep peace and be of good behavior......of the family and that there has been no untoward incident nor any complaint against him. he further submits that the petitioner has been on bail since 6.9.1999 after suffering incarceration. learned counsel for the state submits that in the facts and circumstance of this case he would not be averse to the benefit of the probation of offenders act being extended to the petitioner.3. having heard learned counsel for the parties and having given my careful consideration to the material available on record, i am of the view that in the present case, the petitioner has suffered the agony of trial lasting for about 15 years. besides that, he has already undergone some period in custody. there is no allegation that the petitioner is previous convict. keeping these circumstances in mind and the fact that the offence of which the petitioner has been convicted is not punishable with life imprisonment, he deserves the benefit of probation under section 4 of the probation of offenders act, 1958.4. in this circumstance, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, the sentence of imprisonment and fine as awarded to him is set aside. having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is considered expedient to release him on probation of good conduct. it is, thereforee, directed that the petitioner be released for period of one year on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during such period and, in the meantime, the petitioner shall keep peace and be of good behavior. the requisite bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and the surety to the satisfaction of the trial court/cmm/acmm. the fine, if already paid, is directed to be treated as litigations expenses of the state.5. with the modification, the order under challenge is upheld. the petition stands disposed. the.....

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Crl.A. No. 171 of 1996 arising out of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate held the petitioner guilty under Sections 279/338/304-A, IPC and further vide separate order sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 279, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months; imprisonment of six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 338, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two months; imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 304-A, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction on merits but submits that this is a fit case where accused can be admitted to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. He submits that the incident took place as far back as on 1.5.1986. The petitioner has been facing the ordeal of trial for over 15 years and that the he has now settled down as useful citizen raising children of the family and that there has been no untoward incident nor any complaint against him. He further submits that the petitioner has been on bail since 6.9.1999 after suffering incarceration. Learned Counsel for the State submits that in the facts and circumstance of this case he would not be averse to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act being extended to the petitioner.

3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having given my careful consideration to the material available on record, I am of the view that in the present case, the petitioner has suffered the agony of trial lasting for about 15 years. Besides that, he has already undergone some period in custody. There is no allegation that the petitioner is previous convict. Keeping these circumstances in mind and the fact that the offence of which the petitioner has been convicted is not punishable with life imprisonment, he deserves the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

4. In this circumstance, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, the sentence of imprisonment and fine as awarded to him is set aside. Having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is considered expedient to release him on probation of good conduct. It is, thereforee, directed that the petitioner be released for period of one year on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during such period and, in the meantime, the petitioner shall keep peace and be of good behavior. The requisite bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and the surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/CMM/ACMM. The fine, if already paid, is directed to be treated as litigations expenses of the State.

5. With the modification, the order under challenge is upheld. The petition stands disposed. The bonds directed to be furnished shall be furnished within a period of two weeks failing which the sentence awarded by the Trial Court shall come into effect.

6. Petition disposed of

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Vaswa Nand vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279, 304-A and 338; ...

Criminal