Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
Scaria @ Kariachetan vs State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2015 cites

Ishar Das vs State Of Punjab on 31 January, 1972

20. An injunction is enacted by the Act against passing of the sentence of imprisonment, which the court under the normal circumstances and law is empowered to pass. The imposition of default sentence on a person being dealt with under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act is against the policy of the Act as contained in the Preamble and the Object of the Act. The Apex Court in Isher Das (supra) held that the object of Probation of Offenders Act is to avoid imprisonment of the person covered by the provisions of that Act. Once the court is satisfied that there Crl.R.P.1520/2010 : 15 : exists ground for releasing the offender after admonition under Section 3 of the Act or awarding deferred sentence under Section 4 of the Act, it will be against the object, purpose and spirit of the said provisions to direct the indicted person to go to jail to serve out the sentence in lieu of payment of compensation. In such a situation, the purpose of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act is likely to be frustrated. As the object of Probation of Offenders Act is to avoid imprisonment of the person covered by the provisions of the Act, the said object cannot be set at naught by imposing default sentence. Since the object of the Act is to reform and rehabilitate the offender as a useful and self-reliant member of the society without subjecting him to deleterious effects of jail life, I am of the Crl.R.P.1520/2010 : 16 : view that imposing default sentence for non-payment of compensation under Section 5 of the Act is not legal and correct. For the said reasons, the courts below went wrong in awarding the default sentence for non-payment of compensation under Section 5 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 98 - H R Khanna - Full Document
1