D.P.S.Chauhan - (1.) HAVING found the applicants-Chhabinath Dubey, Harinath Dubey, Suresh and Balram Yadav guilty for the offence of mischief causing damage to the wheat crop bundles of the complainant (Jainath Dubey) kept in the Khalihan for threshing, by setting fire, the 5th Munsif Magistrate, Varanasi in criminal case no. 407/1983 after holding them guilty under Section 435 IPC punish them on 8-4-1986 by imposing a sentence of imprisonment for 3 months' R. I. together with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine each defaulter was required to undergo 1 month's R. 1., where against the appeals nos. 75 of 1986 and 81 of 1986 preferred by two sets of applicants which were dismissed on 27-8-1987 by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi. The present revision is the out come of the aforesaid conviction and sentence as imposed on the applicants which was admitted by this court on 9-10-1987 on the question of sentence.
(2.) SINCE the revision was admitted on the question of sentence, it is not necessary to enter into the merits of the matter. Heard learned counsel for the applicants Sri Amer Saran and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the trial court, inspite of the fact that the applicants were first offenders, did not grant them the benefit under the beneficial legislation, such as, U. P. First Offenders Probation Act, 1938, by letting them off on probation of good conduct, inspite of their being entitled for being dealt with under Section 361 CrPC. They have been deprived the benefit by saying that 'seeing the nature of the offence, no benefit can be granted.' This reasoning can not be said to be the special reason as required thereunder. He prayed that this court, in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction, may grant the applicants the benefit of being let off on probation of good conduct, so to provide them an opportunity of becoming non-offenders.
(3.) THE submission so advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant has got substance. Though Section 360 CrPC was made in-applicable in this State by U. P. Act no. 16 of 1977, but the provisions of Section 361 CrPC as stood after amendment by the said U. P. Act hold the field in the present case. The modern trend in the field of penalogy which has drifted towards the reformative side, is that efforts should be made to bring about correction and reformation of the individual and not to resort to retributive justice and as such instead of fitting the offence the criminal justice to fit the offender.;