Mr. Vinod Kudalkar and Others vs State

N.A. Britto, J.—The applicants herein are accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and B-1 in C. C. No. 81/S/2001. They have been convicted and sentenced by the learned J.M.F.C. by judgment dated 20-8-2009, and that judgment has now been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Margao. In other words, the applicants stand convicted and sentenced under Sections 143, 147, 323, 427, 506 part-II r/w 149 I.P.C. For each of the said offences, the applicants have been sentenced with fine only and below Rs. 500/-, and in default to undergo imprisonment for various periods. For the main offence u/s 323 I.P.C., the applicants have been sentenced with fine of Rs. 250/-, and in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment.

The learned Magistrate(J.M.F.C.) while sentencing the accused took note of the fact that the applicants/accused had faced a lengthy trial for eight years; that they were employees of Sesa Goa, and had assaulted their superior over a dispute of starting a third shift. The learned Magistrate also noted that the incident took place on account of employer and employee dispute. The learned Magistrate therefore took a lenient view and imposed a lesser sentence and lesser amount of fine.

At the hearing of this Criminal Revision Application, the only submission made by Shri Arun Bras De Sa, the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicants is that the applicants deserved to be given benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as according to the learned Counsel that may help them in their case before the Industrial Tribunal. It appears that by a separate inquiry conducted by the Management the applicants have been dismissed from service. Shri Bras De Sa, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Jamal Haq v. State of Tripura (2006) 9 SCC 757 wherein the Apex Court in relation to a teacher admitted him to the benefit of Section 4 of P.O. Act, 1958 so that he may not lose his job and it appears that the submission made was accepted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in view of no objection from the other side. Reliance has also been placed on Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1981 STPL(LE) 10731 SC wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has granted benefit of probation with a view that the service career of the accused may not be affected. That was a case u/s 304-A I.P.C. Shri Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants fairly concedes that no request was made to the Courts below for release of the applicants under probation but learned Counsel further submits that this Court can exercise its powers u/s 11 of the P. O. Act, 1958.

On the other hand, Shri C. A. Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the trial Court has already dealt with the accused very leniently, and, therefore submits that there is no case made out to show further leniency. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that this case is a result of mob violence, and, therefore ought not to be taken very lightly. Shri Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas and Others, and submitted that since at present the only sentence imposed upon the applicants is by way of fine, no purpose would be served by their being released under the P. O. Act, 1958.

The Apex Court in Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas and others(supra) has noted that the P. O. Act, 1958 recognizes the importance of environmental influence in the commission of crimes and prescribes a remedy whereby the offender can be reformed and rehabilitated in society. An attitude of social defiance and recklessness which comes to a convict who, after a jail term, is apt to think that he has no more to lose or fear may breed a litter of crime and the object of the Probation of Offenders Act is to nip that attitude in the bud.

In my view, the fact situation which arose in the two cases cited on behalf of the applicants by their learned Counsel, is totally different from the fact situation prevailing in this case. Here, the applicants who were the accused have been dealt with very leniently by the learned Magistrate. Their misconduct has been considered as serious by the Management and their services have already been terminated and that being the position, in my view, no useful purpose would be served at this belated stage in extending the benefit of the P. O. Act, 1958 to the applicants.

Consequently, the Criminal Revision Application is hereby dismissed.