a bench Justice Subhash Vidyarthi He made this observation while dealing with the sentence revision plea filed by the three accused challenging the validity of the judgment and order passed by the court. Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, on criminal appeal and the order sent Civil Judge (JD), Gonda, to condemn them Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the DP Act and I sentence them to one year in prison simple prison.

Before the court, the arguments were limited to the extent that the trial court convicted and sentenced all defendants for the same crimes. However, the benefit Probation of Offenders Act, 1958was given co-accused Shiv Pyaribut the same was denied to the revisionists without any convincing reason.

It was also alleged that the revisionists were also first offenders, that they had no criminal record, that they were involved in the current case due to a marital dispute, and that the divorce case was already pending.

Opposing the plea for revision, counsel for opposite party No. 2 submitted that the conduct of the revisionists did not warrant this Court to exercise discretion in their favour, as they mistreated the informant and took advantage of the 1958 Act. He was neither shown due respect nor was the informant provided with financial support.

Noting that the revisionists limited their arguments to the point where the trial court rejected the benefit of the 1958 Act. On the contrary, the same benefit was granted to the other defendants; The High Court observed that there was no need to seek the records of the trial court.

“Where the correctness, legality or appropriateness of any finding or sentence is not questioned and the only difficulty is the differential treatment between the co-accused in the enjoyment of the Probation of Offenders Act without any cogent reason being given; As it is understood from the personal examination of the challenged decision, there is no need to request the records of the first instance court.The court observed:

Additionally, the Court stated that: Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958It only comes into play if a person is found guilty of committing a crime.

Therefore, the Court said that if the revisionists are found guilty of committing the above-mentioned crimes, they have the right to claim the benefit of this provision of the 1958 Act.

The court added that the revisionists’ allegation that they had not provided any maintenance or monetary support to the informant was not a ground for denying the revisionists the benefit of Section 4(1) of the 1958 Act.

Therefore, taking into account the nature of the crime, the Supreme Court found fault with the first instance court’s reasoning that the co-defendants benefited from the 1958 Law, while the revisionists were not granted the same rights. revision partially allowed during make changes Gonda order of the Civil Judge (JD) rejecting the benefit of Section 4(1) of the 1958 Act to the revisionists.

The court also directed that if the revisionists appeared before the trial court and presented personal bonds and two sureties for their appearance, they would receive a one-year prison sentence as and when required, while maintaining the peace and maintaining good behavior. The court will release these people on the condition of good behavior and probation.

While deciding the issue, the court added that if the revisionists do not comply with the above-mentioned personal bail and two bail conditions, they will not be able to benefit from this decision.

Case title – Manbodh @ Manoj And 2 Others Vs State Of UP Thru. Add. Chief Secy. Home Cult Lko and another

Case quote:

Click to Read/Download the Order