MOHAMAD AZIZ MOHAMED NASIR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 663 · Decided: 04-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
• 
.. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
MOHAMAD AZIZ MOHAMED NASIR 
''· 
STAJE OF MAHARASHTRA 
September 4, 1975 
[M. H. BEG, P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. SARKAR!A, JJ.] 
Pro'bation of Offenders Act, 1958-S. 6-Scope of. 
663 
On the question whether the provisions of (he Probatien of Offenders Act~ 
1958 should have been applied in this case, 
Allowing the appeal. 
HELD : (1) Even though the point re!atini: to the applicability of s.6 ·w., 
not ·raised before the Presidency Magistrate or the High Court. this Court is 
bound to take notice of the provisions of .that section and give its benefit,. to 
the appellant, particularly since it is a section which is intended for the benefit 
of juvenile delinquents, reflecting the· anxiety of the Legislature to protect tfyem 
from contact or association with hardened criminals in jails and retrieve thenl 
from a life of crime and rehabilitate them as responsible and useful members 
of society. [665 B-CJ 
· 
(2) Section 6 lays down an injunction not to in1pose a sentence oi' imprison-
ment on a person who is under 21 years of age and is found guilty of having.com-
mitted an offence punishable with imprisonment, other than that for lifi,;o, un-
less it is satisfied that it would not be desirable to deal with him under s. 
3 or s. 4. 
This inhibition on the power of the court to impose a sentence of . 
imprisonment applies not only at the stage of trial but also at the sta·ge of 
"Higb Court or any dther court when the case cotnes before it in appeal or 
revision.'" s. 11 (i) [664 JI] 
In the instant case the appellant was below 21 years of age. The appellant 
was. at one time a well-known child film actor_ and won several awards for a~ting 
in :fi.Jms. Subsequently he fell in bad corrij)any and took to evil way~. The . 
offence of theft of two Sarees, though it could not be lightly ignored, was of 3.' 
minor character and this ·was the first offence of the appellant. It cannot re · 
said that it would not be desirable to deal' with the appellant under s. 3' or s. 4 
of the Act. [665 G-Hl 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 129 
of 1971. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
4th March, 1971 of the Bombay High Court at Bombay in Criminal 
Appeal No. 1502 of 1969. 
R. B. Datar and Rajen Yash Paul, for the Appellant . 
M. N. Shroff, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment .of the Court was delivered by-
BHAGWATI, J. The appellant and one Mohd. Yusuf Gulam Mohd. 
were Charged for an offence under s. 3 79 read with s. 34 of the Indian 
Penal Code for snatching two sarees from one Govind whilst he was 
H 
carrying them from the shop of his. master to that of a washer and 
dyer. The learned Presidency Magistrate, who tried the case, accept-
ed'the prosecution evidence and found the appellant and Mohd. Yusuf 
Gulam Mohd. guilty of the offence under s. 379 read with s. 34 and 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 1 S.C.R. 
sentensed each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 
It docs not appear from the judgment of the learned Presidency 
l\fagistrate that, though the appellant was only seventeen years and 
three months old at the date of the offence and the offence was not 
punishable with imprisonment for life, the ~ttention of the learned 
Presidency Magistrate was invited to the provisions of s. 6 of the 
Probation o~ Offenders Act, 1958. The appellant preferred an appeal 
against the order of conviction and sentence to the High Court of 
Bombay but the appeal was unsuccessful. 
The High Court took the 
same view of the evidence as the learned Presidency Magistrate and 
confirmed the conviction of the appellant under s. 379 read with s. 
34. Sv far as the question of sentence was. concerned, a submission 
was made on behalf of the appellant that since he was a young boy 
of about seventeen years and three months and this was 
his 
first 
offence, leniency should be shown to him. 
But the 
High Court 
observed that age alone was not sufficient to invoke the mercy ofl the 
Court and the appellant had not done anything since the date of the 
offence to deserve the mercy of the Court and· it did not, therefore, 
see any reason to interfere with the sentence of imprisonment passed 
against the appellant. 
It appears that once again the provisions of 
s. 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 were not specifically 
brought to the notice .of !he High Court and the sentence of imprison-
ment was maintained by the High Court without applying its mind to

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