The Allahabad High Court stated that it is unfair to give co-accused benefits under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act while denying the same benefits to others for the same crime.
The Allahabad High Court noted that it is unfair to give the benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to one accused while denying it to others when all have been found guilty of the same crimes. The Court partially accepted a Revision that challenged a ruling convicting the Revisionists under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This Revision was against a judgment that supported the Trial Court’s conviction but did not grant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi pointed out that the Trial Court only mentioned that co-accused Shiv Pyari received the benefit of the Act, stating that the nature of the offence meant the Revisionists were not entitled to the same. The Court found it unreasonable to grant probation to one accused while denying it to others when all were guilty of the same offences.
Advocate Ashutosh Shukla represented the Revisionist, while GA Vijay Kumar Tiwari represented the Opposite Party. The Trial Court sentenced the Revisionists to one year of simple imprisonment and imposed fines under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They also received six months of simple imprisonment under Sections 323 and 504 IPC. However, a co-accused was granted the benefit of the Act. The Revisionists argued that they were first-time offenders with no prior criminal record and claimed the denial of the benefit was arbitrary. They stated that the Trial Court did not provide clear reasons for granting probation to one co-accused while denying it to the others, despite all being convicted for the same offences.
The High Court examined the case based on Section 4(1) of the Act, which allows the Court to grant probation to certain offenders for good behavior when suitable. The Lucknow Bench pointed out that the Trial Court failed to give valid reasons for denying probation to the Revisionists while granting it to their co-accused. The only reason given was the “nature of the offence,” which the Court deemed unreasonable. The Court explained that claims from the informant about the Revisionists not providing financial support are related to marital issues and do not warrant the denial of probation under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Court noted that the unreasonableness of the Trial Court’s order is clear, so there was no need to review the entire trial record. Thus, this revision was decided without needing the trial record.
As a result, the Court stated, “Considering the above facts, this Court believes that the Trial Court’s decision to deny the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the revisionists is not legally valid. The other findings in the contested order have not been disputed.” Therefore, the High Court partially granted the Revision.
Cause Title: Manbodh @ Manoj & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:75107)
Appearance:
Revisionist: Advocates Ashutosh Shukla and Praveen Tripathi
Opposite Party: GA Vijay Kumar Tiwari
