ABDUL QAYUM versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 381 · Decided: 15-11-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
'H 
ABDULQAYUM 
v. 
THE Sf ATE OF BmAR 
November 15, 1971 
381 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND D. G. PALEKAll, JI.] 
Probation of Offenders Act (20 of 1958), ss. 4 and fr-Application of 
.11ct-Courts to keep reformative aspect in mind. 
The appellant, was convicted under s. 379 J.P.C. and sentenced to~ 
months R. I.. He committed the theft along wilh another accused. 
Al 
the time of the occurrence he was 16 year$ of age and at the time of con-
viction about 18 years. 
The Probation Officer recommended that he may 
be released on probation under s. 6 of !he Probation of Offenders Act, 
1958, but the trial court declined to do so on the ground that he was an 
associate· of the other accused who was a hardened criminal. The order 
was confirmed in revision by the Hi~h Court. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The sentence should be set aside with the direi;tion that the 
appellant be released under s. 4 of the Act on his entering into a bond, 
with his father as surety, to appear and receive sentence by the trial court 
whenever called upon to do so within a period of one year, and during that 
time, to keep peace and oe of good behaviour. [385 C-D) 
Section 4 empowers the trial court to release an ..,ftender on probation 
and under the Act the power can be exercised by an appellate court. 
(384 C-D] 
In the present case, the report of the Probation Officer does not justify 
the conclusion that the appellant was an associate of the other accused, 
but on the contrary, the report was very favourable to him. The accused 
was .neither a hardened criminal nor an associate of hardened criminals, 
and to sentence him to imprisonment would defeat the ourpose of t'ie Act 
to reform an offender and would achieve the object of associating him with 
hardened criminals. (384 E, H; 385 A.CJ 
Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab, A.LR. 1965 S.C. 444, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal 
No. 290 of 1968. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
August 8, 1968 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision 
No. 1583 of 1967. 
S. N. Misra, K. K. Sinha, B. B. Sinha, S. S. Jauhar and 
S. K. Sinha, for. the appellant. 
D. Goburdhun, for the respondent. 
The Jud~ent of the Court was delivered by 
P. Jaganmoban Reddy, J. 
This Appeal is by Special Leave 
against the Judgment of the Patna High Court l'J(ercising its Revi-. 
sional jurisdiction by which tlle benefit of the provisions of the 
382 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 2 S.C.R. 
Proba1ion of Offenders Act, 1958 (Act No. 20 of 1958) (here-
inafter called 'the Act') was denied to the Appellant Qayum. The 
Appellant was convicted under Sec. 379 of the Indian Panel 
Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. 
The prosecution case was that on the Vijayadashmi day in 1964, 
Jagdish Kumar Sinha alongwith his friends had gone to Mahalia 
Pathar Ki Masjid to see the procession. 
He had in the pockt:t of 
his pant a purpose containing Rs. 56/- in currency notes. 
At 
about 1.30 a.m. when he got down from fae Rikshaw and w~nt 
to the pan shop to purchase pan and cigarette he discovered when 
he wanted to pay the price of the pan and cigarette that some-
body had picked his pocke1 and his purse was gone. He raise<l 
a hue and cry am! seeing that two boys w~re running, he and his 
friends chased them. 
They succeeded with the help of the mem-
bers of the public in catching the Appellant who had immediaiely 
passed the money from the purse to his associa:te Shamim who 
however escaped. 
Both Shamim and the Appellant were convict-
ed. It appears that before 'the Sub Divisional Magistrate a joint 
peti-tion of the owner of the purse Jagdish Kumar Sinha and the 
Appellant for permission to compound the offence was filed under 
Sec. 345(2) of the Indian Penal Code. but it is 
said no order 
seems to have been passed on it and the Appellant was convicted 
as aforesaid. 
As we have not been able to ascertain :the truth or 
otherwise of this fact we do not express any view thereon. 
There 
is no doubt that at the time of the alleged. occurrence :the Appel-
lant was said to be only 16 years of age and at the time of his con-
viction he would be nhout 18 years of age. 
Before the sentence 
was passed on him itwas prayed that under Sec. 6 of 1he Act he 
be t>~leascd pn probation and that no sentence should be passed 
against him. 
The Trial Court called for a Report from 1he Pro-
bation Officer in respect of both the Appellant an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.