Puran Vs. State of Rajasthan

Puran vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Aug 12, 1992

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/762061

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/762061
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: N.L. Tibrewal, J.
Decided On: Aug 12, 1992
Case Number: S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 155 of 1992
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Sections 323 & 447 and Probation of Offenders Act, 1958--Benefit of probation--Magistrate not giving benefit of probation on ground that sentence will prevent accused from repeating offence--Held, it is hardly reason to decline benefit of probation.;The reason given by the trial Magistrate for not g...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Puran

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1992WLN(UC)297

Excerpt

penal code - sections 323 & 447 and probation of offenders act, 1958--benefit of probation--magistrate not giving benefit of probation on ground that sentence will prevent accused from repeating offence--held, it is hardly reason to decline benefit of probation.;the reason given by the trial magistrate for not giving the benefit of probation has been described that the sentence of fine will act to prevent the petitioner to repeat the offence. in my view this could hardly be a reason to decline the benefit of probation to the petitioner, if he is otherwise entitled to get the same(para 2);revision partly allowed - - and having regard to the circumstance of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, 1 think it just and proper to release him on probation of good conduct. 1,000/- to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of six months and in the meantine to keep peace and be of good behaviour.n.l. tibrewal, j.1. this revision under section 507 read with section 401 cr.p.c. is directed against the judgment dated may 11, 92 of addl. sessions judge, bayana in cr. appeal no. 30/90 confirming the conviction & sentence of the petitioner under section 447 and 323 ipc passed by the munsif & judicial magistrate weir in cr. case no. 269/79.2. the only contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner ought to have been dealt under the provisions of the probation of offenders act. the petitioner has been sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 200/- in cash and. under section 447 & 323 ipc by the trial magistrate, which has been affirmed by the addl. sessions judge, bayana. the reason given by the trial magistrate for not giving the benefit of probation has been described that the sentence of fine will act to prevent the petitioner to repeat the offence. in my view this could hardly be a reason to decline the benefit of probation to the petitioner, if he is otherwise entitled to get the same.3. after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned p.p. and having regard to the circumstance of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, 1 think it just and proper to release him on probation of good conduct.4. it is, therefore, directed that he be released on probation on his entering into a bond in the sum of rs. 1,000/- to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of six months and in the meantine to keep peace and be of good behaviour.5. the revision petition is partly allowed as indicated above. the bond shall be furnished before the trial magistrate within one month from to day.

Full Judgment

N.L. Tibrewal, J.

1. This revision under Section 507 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the Judgment dated May 11, 92 of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bayana in Cr. Appeal No. 30/90 confirming the conviction & sentence of the petitioner under Section 447 and 323 IPC passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate Weir in Cr. case No. 269/79.

2. The only contention made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner ought to have been dealt under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in cash and. under Section 447 & 323 IPC by the trial Magistrate, which has been affirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bayana. The reason given by the trial Magistrate for not giving the benefit of probation has been described that the sentence of fine will act to prevent the petitioner to repeat the offence. In my view this could hardly be a reason to decline the benefit of probation to the petitioner, if he is otherwise entitled to get the same.

3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. and having regard to the circumstance of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, 1 think it just and proper to release him on probation of good conduct.

4. It is, therefore, directed that he be released on probation on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of six months and in the meantine to keep peace and be of good behaviour.

5. The revision petition is partly allowed as indicated above. The bond shall be furnished before the trial Magistrate within one month from to day.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1992 Same Parties Puran vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge N.L. Tibrewal, J.

Criminal