LexRATTAN LAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' ' 1961 April 10 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS RATTAN LAL \'. STATE OF PUNJAB [K. SUBBA RAO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.t Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, ss. 611-Criminal Law- Conviction of accused by trial court before the coming into force of the Act-Whether High Court can exercise powers con- ferred on Court under s. 6. The appellant, a resident of Palwal in Gurgaon District, committed house trespass and tried to outrage the modesty of a girl aged 7 years. By an order dated May 31, 1962, he was con- victed by magistrate and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay fine. At the time of his conviction, he was 16 years old. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was extended to Gurgaon on September 1, 1962 and hence at the time of his con- viction the magistrate had no power or duty to make any order under the Act. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon by· his order dated Sep- tember 22, 1962. His revision petition was also dismissed by the High Court on September 27, 1962. No ground was taken either before the Additional Sessions Judge or High Court that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be ap- plied in the case. After the dismissal of the revision petition, appellant filed a criminal miscellaneous petition requesting the High Court to exercise its powers ·under s. 11 of the Act and pass orders under ss. 3, 4 or 6 of the Act. The application was also dismissed by High Court. The appellant filed a petition in the High Court for the grant of a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court and one of the grounds taken was that High Court should have acted under s. 11\0f the Act and passed orders under ss. 3, 4 or 6 of t!J.e Act. The certificate having been refused by High Court, the appellant came to this Court by special leave. Accepting the appeal, Held (Per Subba Rao and Das Gupta, JJ.): The order of the High Court be set aside and High Court be directed to make an order under s. 6 or if it so desires, remand the case to the Sessions Court for doing so. It is true that ordinarily, this court is reluc- tant to. allow a party to raise a point for the first time before it, but in this case. both the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court ignored the mandatory provisions of the Act. It i< true that the appellant did not bring the provisions of the Act to the notice of the Court till after the disposal of the revision . petition, but that does not absolve the court from discharging its . duty under the Act. The appellate court in appeal or the High Court on revision can, in exercise of the powers conferred under s. 11 of the Act, make an order under s. 6(1). 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. The Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those - 7 S.C.R. SUPRE:\IE COURT REPORTS 677 above that age and offenders who are guilty of committing an offence punishable with death or •imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years, absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard .to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under ss. 3 and 4 of the Act. An order under s. 11(1) of the Act can be made by any court empowered to try and sentence the offender to imprisonment and also by High Court or any other court when case comes before it on appeal or in revision. The sub-section ex fade does not circumscribe the jurisdiction of an appellate court to make an order under the Act only in a case where the trial court could have made that order. The phraseology used therein is wide enough to enable the appellate court or High Court, when the case come before, it, to make such an order. It was purposely made comprehensive as the Act was made to implement a social reform. As the Act does not change the quantum of the sentence,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.