Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.79 seconds)The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Venka Anantha Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 28 August, 1973
As a precedent learned counsel cited the decision of this Court in Aitha
Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1981] Supple. SCC 17. But we may
point out that the two Judge Bench, which extended the benefit of Section 4
of the P.O. Act to the accused in that case, made it clear that such a
course was resorted to "having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this
case". None of the peculiar circumstances has been specified in the
decision except that the negligence on the part of the driver in that case
was only contributory. The said decision, therefore, cannot be treated as
an authority to support the contention that the court should, as a normal
rule, invoke the provisions of the P.O. Act when the accused is convicted
of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC in causing death of human beings
by rash or negligent driving.
State Of Gujarat vs Jamnadas G. Pabri And Ors. Etc on 3 October, 1974
It was then held that the court must construe the said word in keeping with
the context and object of the provision in its widest amplitude. Here the
word "expedient" is used in Section 4 of the P.O. Act in the context of
casting a duty on the court to take into account "the circumstances of the
case
including the nature of the offence.........". This means Section 4 can be
resorted to when the court considers the circumstances of the case,
particularly the nature of the offence, and the court forms its opinion
that it is suitable and appropriate for accomplishing a specified object
that the offender can be released on probation of good conduct. Courts must
bear in mind that when any plea is made based on Section 4 of the P.O. Act
for application to a convicted person under Section 304-A of IPC, that road
accidents have proliferated to alarming extent and the toll is galloping up
day-by-day in India, and that no solution is in sight not suggested by any
quarters to bring them down. When this Court lamented two decades ago that
"more people die of road accidents than by most diseases, so much so the
Indian highways are among the top killers of the country" the saturation of
accidents toll was not even half of what it is today. So V.R. Krishna Iyer,
J., has suggested in the said decision thus :
State Of Bihar vs Radha Krishna Singh & Ors on 20 April, 1983
In State of Kamataka v. Krishna alias Raju, [1987] 1 SCC 538 this Court did
not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under
Section 304-A IPC to remain in force although the High Court too had
confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of
driving a bus callously and causing death of a human being. In that case
this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months
besides imposing a fine.
Section 4 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
1