TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding the said benefit in a case under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments, Act, 1881. There is no reason in the present case to deny the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 Cr.P.C. to the respondent no. 2. The learned Appellate Court did not commit error in holding that respondent no. 2 had no criminal antecedents. The conduct of the respondent no. 2 in the present case was duly taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court and accordingly conditions were imposed for availing the benefit of probation. As per the impugned order, respondent no. 2 was directed to pay compensation to the petitioner to a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. which has been duly paid. The period of probation as per impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 16.11.2017 convicted respondent no. 2, and vide order dated 19.12.2017 sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C within 30 days from the date of order and in default of payment of compensation to the complainant, respondent no. 2 was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. Aggrieved by the order of conviction dated 16.11.2017 and order on sentence dated 19.12.2017, respondent no. 2 preferred an appeal bearing CA No. 05/2018 assailing the said orders. Learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.03.2018, while upholding the conviction of respondent no. 2 under Section 138 NI Act, 1881, partly se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount of compensation of Rs.80,000/- as awarded by the Ld. trial court within 07 days from today failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment of six months as awarded by the Ld.trial court.... (emphasis supplied) 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by aforesaid portion of the impugned order, to the extent of grant of probation to respondent no. 2, has filed the present petition. 5. The petitioner, who is present in person, argues that the order vide which benefit of probation has been extended to respondent no. 2 is against the law as merely not being a previous convict cannot be a ground for the grant of probation. It is also argued that learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that respondent no. 2 who was tenant o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has already been paid and accepted by the present petitioner. It is stated that present petition has been filed with mala fide intention and, therefore, it has been prayed that petition be dismissed with cost. 8. The arguments and contentions raised on behalf of both the parties have been heard. 9. In the given set of facts, it will be useful to first refer to Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act,1958 ( P.O. Act ). Section 360 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition. (1) When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. 12. While noting the philosophy behind the P.O. Act, 1958 the Hon ble Supreme Court in Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 444 observed: 4. The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him... 13. After hearing arguments and having gone through the material on record, it emerges that the petitioner who is the original complainant under Section 138 of NI Act, 1888 is only aggrieved by the fact that instead of upholding the order on sentence, also while upholding the order on conviction, the Appellate Court had shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
