A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mohindergarh under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each. On appeal, their conviction and sentence of fine was maintained, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment was reduced from one year to six months by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul Hence this revision petition.
(2.) MR . Manmohan Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, canvassed that the Petitioners are first offenders and are young man, that they are on bail and they may be given the benefit of probation. I have perused the record The offence took place on the December, 1973 The report of the Probation Officer was called by the trial Court. The Probation Officer recommended that Sube Singh and Ram Dhan, Petitioners be released on probation but he did not recommend probation for Laxmi Narain Petitioner the trial Court did not give benefit of probation to the Petitioners on the ground that the quantity of rice recovered was huge The trial Court as welt as the Appellate Court have not appreciated the provisions relating to the probation correctly. The Legislature while inducting Section 360 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, intended that certain categories of offenders convicted of certain offences be given the benefit of probation taking into consideration their age, character and antecedents and oilier circumstances in which the offences was committed Under Section Criminal Procedure Code, special reasons are to be given for denying this benefit. There is nothing on the record to show anything adverse to their character and antecedents They are first offenders. They are on bail. The Probation Officer has also recommended to allow the benefit of probation to Sube Singh and Ram Dhan, Petitioners but he did not recommend grant of probation to Laxmi Narain, Petitioner. He only gave the reason that since he was driving the vehicle, so he is not entitled to the benefit of probation. These are not the considerations which are to weigh with the Courts while considering the probation. The man considerations in this respect are the age, character and antecedents and the circumstances in which the offence was committed The Courts below did not consider the matter of probation on these considerations. The object of punishment is no to be retributive but also to be reformative and by inclusion of the provisions of Sections 360 and 361 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Legislature clearly intended that an effort may be made to reform an offender. It is only in case of those offenders who are hardened criminals and who cannot be reformed, that the Courts have to deny the benefit of probation. Accordingly I am of the view that it is a fit case where the benefit of probation can be given to the Petitioners. Moreover, the offence took place about 7 years ago. No useful purpose will be served to commit them to imprisonment after a lapse of about 7 years Accordingly their conviction if maintained, but their sentence of imprisonment and fine is set aside and it is directed that they shall be released on probation for a period of one year on their entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/ each with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, undertaking to appear and received the sentence as and when called upon by the Court to do so during the said period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, Each One of them is further directed to pay litigation costs of Rs. 500/ - (Rupees five hundred) to the State
(3.) EXCEPT for the alteration in the sentence as indicated above, this petition files and is dismissed.;