Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Justice Anoop Chitkara of the Himachal Pradesh HC upheld the decision of the appellate court in the present case. In the case, the court on its own took unto its jurisdiction the release of the respondent under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 post conviction under Section 332 of the Penal Code 1860.
The complainant was a police constable on traffic duty where he was assaulted by the respondent for not allowing his vehicle to traverse on the wrong lane. The complainant was thrashed twice, once in the public place and once in the police station. The Trial Court upon hearing the matter convicted the accused-respondent under the provisions of Section 332 IPC. Upon appealing for revision of judgement, the Sessions Court upheld the conviction but expressed dissatisfaction regarding the non consideration of Section 361 of CrpC. The matter was sent back to the Trial Court which after the report of the Probation Officer granted probation. This order was challenged at the HC.
In the present matter, the court relied upon the judgement delivered in the case State of Himachal v. Lat Singh, 1989 SCC HP 71 where it was stated that Section 361 of the CrPC applies with its entire force until the Court specified special reasons for not applying it. The Court also answered the question regarding the power of the Sessions Court to remand the case for further consideration. The HC stated that the answer to this lies in Section 386(b)(iii) CrPC which defines the powers of the Appellate Court and states that in an appeal from a conviction the Appellate Court may, with or without altering the findings, alter the nature or extent of sentence. In view of the facts, the Court held that the decision of the appellate court did not suffer any inconsistencies. The HC therefore dismissed the proceedings.
Court on its own motion v. Raghubir Singh, Crl. Revision No. 102 of 2012
86540
103860
630
114
59824