Case Note & Summary
The revision applicant, Rameshwar s/o Pralhad Sarode, challenged the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, in Criminal Appeal No.15/1999, whereby the appellate court granted the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused persons (respondents 2 to 6). The revision applicant contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to call for a report from the Probation Officer before passing the order, which is a condition precedent under Section 4(2) of the Act. He relied on the Supreme Court ruling in MCD vs. State of Delhi and another, (2005) 4 SCC 605, to argue that the order was illegal. The respondents, represented by Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, countered that after the revision was filed, no interim stay was granted, and the accused had already completed the probation period of two years and furnished the required bonds. The court, per Justice A.P. Bhangale, observed that the revision application had become infructuous as the accused had already complied with the conditions of the bond and the probation period had expired. The court noted that while the failure to call for a Probation Officer's report was a procedural irregularity, it did not warrant interference at this stage since the order had been fully executed. The revision application was accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4 - Condition Precedent - Probation Officer Report - The appellate court granted probation to accused persons without calling for a report from the Probation Officer, which is a condition precedent under Section 4(2) of the Act. However, since the accused had already completed the probation period and furnished the required bonds, the revision application challenging the order became infructuous. Held that the non-compliance, though irregular, does not warrant interference after the probation period has expired. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order granting probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is vitiated for non-compliance with the condition precedent of calling for a report from the Probation Officer before releasing the accused on probation.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed as having become infructuous. The court held that since the accused had already completed the probation period and furnished the required bonds, the challenge to the order granting probation had become moot.
Law Points
- Probation of Offenders Act
- 1958
- Section 4
- Condition precedent
- Probation Officer report
- MCD vs. State of Delhi
- (2005) 4 SCC 605
- Revision
- Mootness
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 186
Criminal Revision Application No. 300/2007
Mr. S.I. Jagirdar for applicant, Mr. D.B. Yengal APP for Respondent No.1, Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar for Respondent Nos.2 to 6
Rameshwar s/o Pralhad Sarode
The State of Maharashtra, Ramrao s/o Vithal Hage, Gajanan Ramrao Hage, Dayaram Ramrao Hage, Narayan Ramrao Hage, Digambar Ramrao Hage
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application challenging the order granting probation to accused persons under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Remedy Sought
The revision applicant sought to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting probation to the accused persons on the ground that the Probation Officer's report was not called for before passing the order.
Filing Reason
The revision applicant challenged the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, in Criminal Appeal No.15/1999, which granted benefit of probation to the accused persons without calling for a report from the Probation Officer.
Previous Decisions
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, in Criminal Appeal No.15/1999, had granted probation to the accused persons upon their executing bonds to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years, with supervision of a Probation Officer.
Issues
Whether the order granting probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is vitiated for non-compliance with the condition precedent of calling for a report from the Probation Officer before releasing the accused on probation.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. S.I. Jagirdar, learned Advocate for the revision applicant, submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have called for a report from the Probation Officer before passing the impugned order, as it was a condition precedent for release of the accused, relying on MCD vs. State of Delhi and another, (2005) 4 SCC 605.
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 to 6, submitted that after this Revision Application was filed, there was no interim stay, and the accused had already completed the probation period and furnished the required bonds, rendering the revision infructuous.
Ratio Decidendi
The condition precedent of calling for a Probation Officer's report under Section 4(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is mandatory. However, if the probation period has already been completed and the accused has complied with the bond conditions, the revision challenging the order becomes infructuous and does not warrant interference.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Revision Application, the revision applicant questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Criminal Appeal No.15/1999 whereby the learned Judge gave benefit of Probation of Offenders Act 1958 to the accused persons...
He submitted with reference to the ruling in MCD vs. State of Delhi and another reported in (2005) 4 SCC 605 that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have called for report from the Probation Officer before passing the impugned order as it was a condition precedent for release of the accused.
To counter these submissions, Mr S.V.Sirpurkar, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 submitted that after this Revision Application was filed, there was no interim stay so as to...
Procedural History
The accused persons were convicted and appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, who in Criminal Appeal No.15/1999 granted them probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The revision applicant, being the complainant, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 300/2007 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order. The revision was heard on 22nd March 2011 and dismissed as infructuous.
Acts & Sections
- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Section 4
