Allahabad High Court
GIRJA YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The conviction was upheld but the appellant was released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation Offenders Act, 1958.
Summary
Girja Yadav was convicted under IPC sections 324 and 323 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine, and six months' imprisonment respectively. He appealed only against the sentence, arguing that as a first‑time offender the trial court should have invoked Section 360 of the CrPC or Sections 3/4 of the Probation Offenders Act, 1958, and that the court failed to give reasons for not doing so, violating Section 361 of the CrPC. The High Court upheld the conviction but held that the appellant was eligible for the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation Offenders Act. Consequently, the court released him on probation for one year upon filing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 and directed payment of the fine. The appeal was dismissed, with the sentence modified to probation.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court was required to consider the benefit of Section 360 CrPC or Sections 3/4 of the Probation Offenders Act, 1958 in sentencing a first‑time offender.
- Whether the failure to record reasons for not granting the beneficial provisions violates Section 361 CrPC.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to probation despite the conviction under IPC sections 323 and 324.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 360, 361
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324
- Probation Offenders Act, 1958 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- probation
- sentence modification
- first‑time offender
- IPC 323
- IPC 324
- Section 360 CrPC
- Section 361 CrPC
- Probation Offenders Act
- criminal appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2844 of 1988
Girja Yadav
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Durga Charan Singh Yadav, Mahendra Pratap
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated
30.11.1988 passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge, Varanasi, in Sessions
Trial No. 98 of 1983, convicting and sentencing the appellants under section 324/34
I.P.C. to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250 and in default two months R.I. and under
section 323/34 I.P.C. to six months imprisonment.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the accused-appellant has
not been convicted previously for any offence and he is the first time offender. He at
the outset submits that he is not challenging the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and he is confining his submission in the criminal appeal only with respect
to the order of sentence.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the accused-
appellant, the criminal appeal is dismissed so far as it relates to the impugned
judgment and order of conviction, passed by the learned trial court. The impugned
judgment and order of conviction, passed by the learned trial court is hereby, upheld.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits that in view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the fact that the accused-appellant has not
been convicted previously for any offence, the trial court ought to have invoked the
provisions of the Probation Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
the sake of brevity).
6. The trial court did neither invoke the provisions of the aforesaid Act nor the
provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C., while sentencing the accused- appellant.The trial
court has not given any special reason in the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence for not giving the benefit of provisions of Section 360
Cr.P.C., or the provisions of the Act, 1958.
CRLA No. 2844 of 1988
2
7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that to that extent, the impugned
judgment and order suffers from serious illegality being violative of provisions of
Section 361 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it cannot be sustained.
8. Section 361 of the Code is required to be applied with or without the beneficial
provisions i.e. Section 360 of the Code or provisions of the Act, 1958. If the Court
chooses not to apply either of these provisions, it is required to give special reasons
for not applying the beneficial provision in case the accused offender otherwise, is
eligible for provisions of Section 360 of the Code or Section 3 or 4 of the Act.
9. The accused-appellant has statutory right for claiming the benefit of beneficial
legislation i.e. the provisions of the Act and the learned trial court was under a duty to
consider the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C or Sections 3 or 4 of the Act as
mandated under Section 361 Cr.P.C. If the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C or
provisions of the Act were not applied, then the learned trial court should have
recorded reasons for the same.
10. Learned AGA, appearing for the State does not dispute the fact that the accused-
appellant is the first time offender and was not previously convicted in any other case.
He further submits that in view of the express provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C,
considering the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, the character of the
accused-appellant and particularly, the time period which has lapsed since the date of
incident, the benefit of Section 4 of the Act can be granted in this case.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances mentioned and considering the scope
of Section 4 of the Act, this criminal appeal is, accordingly dismissed by upholding
the conviction of the accused-appellant. However, he is granted benefit of Section 4 of
the Act. The accused-appellant/Girja Yadav is released on probation. The
accused/appellant shall file personal bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ and he shall keep
peace in the society and shall not commit any such offence in future. The bond shall
be for one year. The appellant is directed to pay fine of Rs. 250/- if not paid, within 30
days from today.
12. In case of breach of any such condition by the accused-appellant during the next
one year, the sentence of imprisonment as ordered shall continue. The bond filed by
the appellant/accused shall stand discharged upon completion of the period of
probation, i.e. one year.
13. Let a copy of this judgment as well as the record, if any, be transmitted to the
concerned trial court forthwith for necessary compliance.
March 31, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…