Patna High Court - Orders
Raj Bansh Pasi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 November, 2014
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.297 of 2013
======================================================
Raj Bansh Pasi son of Rang Lal Pasi, resident of Village-Sapnautiya, P.S.-
Sonhan District-Kaimur at Bhabua
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ram Lal Ram @ Tengari Ram son of Late Ram Das Ram
3. Mutur Ram son of Late Ram Das Ram
4. Moti Lal Ram son of Late Dasai Ram
5. Parayan Ram son of Mutur Ram
6. Mithai Ram son of Dasai Ram
7. Pariksha Ram son of Dasai Ram
8. Arun Ram son of Ram Lal Ram
9. Nakharu Ram son of Ram Lal Ram
10. Kamal Ram son of Late Ram Das Ram
11. Pramod Ram son of Kamal Ram
12. Vinod Ram son of Late Kadai Ram
All are residents at Village-Sapnautiya, P.S.-Sanhan, District-
Kaimur at Bhabua.
.... .... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Anuj Kr.Shrivastava(App)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 17-11-2014The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 21.06.2012 passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-V, Kaimur at Bhabua in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2009/112 of 2012, whereby O.P. No. 2 Ram Lal Ram has been acquitted for the charges under Sections 148 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act but the O.P. Nos. 2 to 12 have been convicted under Sections 147, 323, 342, 504 of the I.P.C whereas O.P. No. 5 has further been convicted for the charge under Section 325 of the I.P.C, but all the convicts have been released after due admonition under Patna High Court CR. REV. No.297 of 2013 (5) dt.17-11-2014 2/3 Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer with regard to the release of O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act in spite of the fact that they were convicted vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.11.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kaimur at Bhabua in Trial No. 1127 of 2009 arising out of Complaint Case No. 758 of 2005 for the charge under Section 147 and 379 of the I.P.C whereby O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 were sentenced on each counts for six months simple imprisonment. Hence, they ought not to had been released on due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act which strictly bars such privilege to the previous convicts.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that O.P. No. 5 has been convicted under Section 325 of the I.P.C, whereas the privilege under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act can only be provided to the person who has been found guilty for committing an offence under Section 379, 380, 401, 420 of the I.P.C or for offences punishable for not more than two years, whereas the for the offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C, a convict can be sentenced up to seven years. Hence, O.P. No. 5 ought not to have been released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.297 of 2013 (5) dt.17-11-20143/3
Learned counsel for the opposite parties though tried to put a defence that in the background of land dispute the accusation has been levelled, but in view of the order of sentence passed contrary to the provisions under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, this Court has no option but to set aside the order of sentence of O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-V, Kaimur at Bhabua in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2009/112 of 2012 vide judgment dated 21.06.2012.
The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court for passing an order afresh on the question of sentence with regard to the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5.
Accordingly the application is disposed off.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Shageer/-
U T