JAGAT BORA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question of law has been raised in this batch of petitions. The point for consideration is whether this Court has jurisdiction in view of Section 362, Criminal P.C. 1973 to give benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter the Act) to the petitioners after their revision applications against orders of convictions had been finally disposed of. In case this question is answered in the affirmative, the individual merits shall have to be gone into.

(2.) IN all these cases after hearing the revision applications on merit, the same were disposed of by upholding the orders of convictions as well as the sentences with or without modification. Subsequently, these petitions were filed under Section 11 of the Act read with Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. As a common question of law cropped up, the same being the permissibility to entertain these applications, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. There is no doubt that the Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. The object of the criminal law is being increasingly recognised as reformation of the individual rather than his punishment. Rattanlal v. State of Punjab : 1965CriLJ360 has, therefore, held that the provisions of the Act would even be attracted in a case where the Act was made applicable to an area even after the persons residing in that area had been convicted and sentenced by the trial court. This decision has further laid down that the benefit of the Act can be made available under Section 11 by revisional court even when the trial court could not have passed orders under the Act.

(3.) SOORAJ Devi 1981 Cri LJ 296 (SC) (supra) followed the decision given in Ram Chander 1979 Cri LJ 33 (SC) and held that a final order of judgment passed by a court could only be altered or reviewed to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, which was elucidated to mean an error, occasioned by accidental slip or omission of the court and represented that which the Court never intended to say. The invocation of inherent powers in this regard was categorically ruled out. In Naresh v. State of U.P. : 1981CriLJ1044 , the subsequent alteration of conviction from Section 302 to Section 304, Part -I of the I.P.C. was viewed, with grave concern by the appeal Court who expressed its serious displeasure at the course of events in the High Court.