MANOJ A CHHARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Valsad at Navsari on 15/04/1988 in Criminal Case No. 1881 of 1988 as affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Valsad at Navsari on 2/09/1989 by his decision in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1988 is under challenge in this revisional application under Sec. 401 read with Sec. 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the 'Cr.P.C.' for brief).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revisional application are not many and not much in dispute. The petitioner herein was charged with having removed silver strips weighing 2 1/2 Kgs. from the shop of the original complainant. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioner in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Valsad at Navsari. It came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1881 of 1988. The present petitioner as the accused pleaded guily to the charge. It was reported to the Court that he was aged 20 years at that time and he should therefore be given benefits of probation. The learned trial Magistrate thereupon called for the report of the Probation Officer. After making the necessary enquiry, the Probation Officer submitted his report. It was found adverse to the petitioner herein. On perusal of the report and after hearing the parties, by his judgment and order passed on 1 5/04/1988, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Valsad at Navsari was pleased to sentence the present petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to a tine of Rs. 500 and in default thereof rigorous imprisonment for ore mere month. It is needless to say that the learned trial Magistrate -was pleased to convict the accused of the offence punishable under Sec. 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the 'I. P. C.' for brief). Aggrieved thereby, the present petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Sessions Court of Valsad at Navsari. His appeal came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1988. After hearing the parties, by his judgment and order passed on 2/09/1989 in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1988, the learned Sessions Judge of Valsad at Navsari was pleased to dismiss the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court for questioning the correctness of the order of sentence passed by the Courts below.

(3.) Shri Chhara for the petitioner has submitted that the previous convictions of the present petitioner as referred to by the Probation Officer in his report have not come to be proved, and as such the Courts below were in error in relying on the previous convictions of the present petitioner referred to in the report of the Probation Officer for the purpose of denying to the present petitioner benefits of probation. Shri Chhara has further urged that the trial Court was in error in not complying with the relevant provisions contained in Sec. 7 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (the 'P. 0. Act' for brief) by not communicating in writing to the present petitioner the substance of the report of the Probation Officer. According to Shri Chhara for the petitioner, non-communication of the substance of the report of the Probation Officer to the present petitioner has deprived him of his valuable right to meet with the case put up by the Probation Officer against him.