Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (11) TMI 1084 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues:
Petition challenging grant of probation to respondent no. 2 after conviction under Section 138 of NI Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the judgment granting probation to respondent no. 2 after being convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Trial Court had convicted respondent no. 2 and sentenced him to two months' imprisonment and a compensation of Rs. 80,000. The Appellate Court partly set aside the sentence and granted probation to respondent no. 2, which the petitioner challenged.

2. The petitioner argued that respondent no. 2, a tenant, was in illegal possession of the petitioner's property for 36 months, causing financial hardships. Respondent no. 2 delayed vacating the property and did not pay arrears of rent, totaling approximately Rs. 5,22,000, and maintenance charges of Rs. 61,435. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Court overlooked these facts.

3. Respondent no. 2's counsel argued that the compensation amount of Rs. 80,000 was paid to the petitioner, and the Appellate Court rightly granted probation due to respondent no. 2's clean antecedents. The counsel alleged the petition was filed with mala fide intentions and requested its dismissal.

4. The Court examined Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It cited Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing a lenient view while considering the offender's conduct and surrounding circumstances. The Court also referred to Dilshad Ahmad v. State (NCT of Delhi) to support granting probation based on the nature of the offense and the offender's character.

5. Considering the philosophy behind the P.O. Act, the Court observed that the Act aims at reforming offenders rather than solely punishing them. It found that the Appellate Court rightly granted probation to respondent no. 2, who had no criminal antecedents, and imposed conditions for probation, including paying the compensation, which was fulfilled. The Court concluded that the Appellate Court's decision was justified, and there was no need for interference.

6. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, stating it lacked merit, as there was no infirmity in the Appellate Court's decision to grant probation to respondent no. 2.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates