T.H.B.CHALAPATHI, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is filed against. the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated November 25, 1986, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/ - as costs of proceedings to the State while directing the release of the petitioner on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner was accused of committing an offence under Section 61(1) of the Punjab Excise Act for being in possession of 300 Kgs. of Lahan. The trial Court namely, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar by his judgment dated August 7, 1986 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 61(1) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 -1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 1986. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge while confirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 61(1) of the Punjab Excise Act directed his release on probation but also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of 1500/ - as costs of the proceedigns to the State; and the amount of fine which was paid by the petitioner was directed to be adjusted towards the costs of proceedings.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the imposition of costs on the petitioner, the petitioner preferred the above revision petition. The learned counsel for the -petitioner argued that while releasing the petitioner on probation, no costs can be imposed and therefore, the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge imposing costs on the petitioner, is liable to be set aside.
(3.) THE only point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the Additional Sessions Judge is competent to award costs to the State while releasing the petitioner on probation. This question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Girdhari Lal v. State of Punjab, 1982 Crl. Law Journal 1742, wherein it was held that there cannot be a direction for compensation under Section 357(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure where there is no sentence of fine and where the convict has been let of on probation. The Sessions Court was not therefore, justified in directing the payment of litigation costs to the State under Section 357 Cr.P.C. especially when the court released the accused on probation. Further, neither the Code nor the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act provide imposition of fine while releasing an accused on probation of good conduct. Therefore, when the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that it is a fit case to release the accused on probation, there is no question of imposing any fine and awarding any costs to be paid to the State. Therefore, the direction to pay the costs and also maintaining the amount of fine, have to be set aside. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed and the direction of the. Additional Sessions Judge, directing the petitioner to pay the costs of Rs. 1500/ - to the State is hereby set aside. The sentence of fine imposed by the learned Magistrate is also liable to be set aside because the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the release of the petitioner on probation because there cannot be a sentence and also probation. Therefore, the amount of fine, if paid, is directed to be refunded to the petitioner. Revision allowed.;