- (1.)In the instant case, the appellant was tried for an offence under section 307 IPC and under sections 25/54/59 of the Indian arms Act. After trial, the appellant was convicted for the offence under section 324 IPC after being acquitted of the offence under section 307 IPC and section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. After convicting the appellant, the trial court granted him the benefit under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and ordered that he be released on probation for a period of one year. He was directed to maintain peace and good behaviour during the said period of one year.
(2.)The appellant filed an appeal against his conviction under section 324 IPC which was withdrawn. On 25th July, 1993, an application was filed on behalf of the prosecution under section 9 of the Probation of Offenders Act alleging that the appellant had been involved in an offence under section 307 IPC and under the Indian arms Act and the benefit granted to him under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders act should be withdrawn. After giving the appellant an opportunity, by order dated 21st January. 1999 the trial court withdrew the benefit given to the appellant under the Probation of Offenders Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years and also required him to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.
(3.)The order passed under section 9 of the Probation of Offenders Act was sought to be challenged by the appellant by filing a criminal appeal no. 297/99 before the himachal Pradesh High Court. A preliminary objection was raised to the effect that no appeal was maintainable against the order passed under section 9 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The High Court accepted this contention and dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable against an order passed under section 9 of the Probation of Offenders Act.