Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1962 (12) TMI SC This
Issues Involved:
1. Construction of Sections 6 and 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2. Applicability of Section 6 to the appellant Ramji. 3. Applicability of Section 6 to the appellant Basist. 4. Discretionary powers of the High Court under Section 11. 5. Determination of the crucial date for reckoning the age of the offender. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Construction of Sections 6 and 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: The appeal primarily concerns the interpretation of Sections 6 and 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Section 6(1) stipulates that courts should not sentence individuals under 21 years of age to imprisonment unless it is deemed undesirable to deal with them under Sections 3 or 4. Section 11 allows appellate and revisional courts to pass orders under the Act, including those under Sections 3 and 4. 2. Applicability of Section 6 to the appellant Ramji: The Assistant Sessions Judge sentenced Ramji, who was 21 years old at the time of the judgment, to two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to nine months due to Ramji's tuberculosis. The High Court determined that Section 6(1) did not apply to Ramji as he was over 21 years old at the time of sentencing. The Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the age relevant for Section 6(1) is the age at the time of sentencing, not at the time of the offense. 3. Applicability of Section 6 to the appellant Basist: Basist, who was 19 years old at the time of the offense, was initially sentenced to six years under Section 307 and four years under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court later altered the conviction to Section 324 and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court noted that Basist was under 21 years old at the time of the trial court's judgment, making Section 6(1) applicable to him. The High Court failed to consider this, and thus, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court to apply Section 6(1) properly. 4. Discretionary powers of the High Court under Section 11: The High Court believed it had an unfettered discretion under Section 11 to pass or refuse orders under the Act. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's discretion is not absolute and must be exercised within the limitations and criteria set out in Sections 3, 4, and 6. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court must apply the same standards and guidance as the trial courts when exercising its powers under Section 11. 5. Determination of the crucial date for reckoning the age of the offender: The Supreme Court considered whether the age of the offender should be reckoned at the date of the trial court's judgment or the appellate court's decision. The Court concluded that the crucial date for determining the age is the date when the trial court had to deal with the offender. Since Basist was under 21 years old at the time of the trial court's judgment, Section 6(1) was applicable to him, even if he was over 21 by the time of the appellate court's decision. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part, specifically concerning the second appellant, Basist. The case was remanded to the High Court to consider the proper order to be passed in Basist's case by applying the provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court must apply the same criteria and limitations as the trial courts when exercising its discretionary powers under Section 11.
|