9 Jan 2023 8:00 AM GMT
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench has reiterated that the provision under Section 361 CrPC is mandatory and that the trial court ought to record its reasons in writing as to why it would not be advisable to grant the benefit of probation to convict who is otherwise eligible for the same. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal observed- Provisions of Section 361...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench has reiterated that the provision under Section 361 CrPC is mandatory and that the trial court ought to record its reasons in writing as to why it would not be advisable to grant the benefit of probation to convict who is otherwise eligible for the same.
The bench comprising Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal observed-
Provisions of Section 361 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory and if trial Court is of the opinion that order to release on probation is not advisable, he has to assign reasons for non-giving the benefit. Beside this, as per Section 360(4) of Cr.P.C., this benefit can be awarded by the appellate Court or by the High Court while exercising its powers of revision.
Facts of the case were that the Petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC. Despite being eligible to be released on probation, the trial court did not extend him the benefit. Aggrieved, the Petitioner moved the High Court.
The Petitioner argued that the lower court ought to have given him the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act and under Section 360 CrPC. It was further contended that it was mandatory for the court below under Section 361 CrPC to record its reasons for not extending the benefit of probation, but the same was not done.
Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court concurred with the arguments put forth by the Petitioner. It noted that the trial court should have extended the benefit of probation to the Petitioner-
In case in hand, offence pertains to domestic dispute wherein petitioner is alleged to have harassed his wife due to non-satisfaction of demand of dowry. This petition is pending since 2007 and petitioner was 23 years of age at the time of offence. Along with charge-sheet, prosecution has not filed any antecedents of the petitioner that he is having criminal record or he is of bad character. There is no evidence that petitioner was involved in any offence during this period. In view of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, benefit of probation ought to have been extended to the petitioner which trial Court as well as appellate Court have not extended.
With the aforesaid observations, the Court found it fit to release the Petitioner on probation of good character for a period of one year on furnishing a personal bond before the trial court. Accordingly, the petition was allowed.
Case Title: MAHESH VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 8
Click Here To Read/Download Order