Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
First time offender - When entitled to Probation. - Petitioner being first offender under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act, aged 26 at the time of raid, suffered 10 years' litigation, not shown to be a person with bad antecedents - It will be expedient in the interest of justice to give him a chance to mend his ways rather than to send him to jail- Conviction maintained - Petitioner released on probation on personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000. 75 kg. Lahan recovered from accused. Sentence of R.1. for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- imposed by trial Court and affirmed by Sessions Judge. Accused a poor labourer and first of- fender. Report of probation officer not called for by trial Court. Benefit of probation denied to accused without considering his age, character and antecedents. Object of also reformative. Accused granted benefit of probation under Section 360 C.P.C. by the High Court. First offender. Recovery of huge quantity of lahan and running still. It shows the accused was running a minor distillery which affected State exchequer and the illicit liquor produced by him affected the health of general public. Such boot leggers are to be dealt with deterrent punishment. Offence punishable with three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 2000/-. Accused awarded only one year R.1. and fine of Rs. 1000/- Not entitled to be released on probation. Accused aged 17 years and a first offender. Revision before the High Court. Sentence im- posed upon him held to be illegal and he was held entitled to be released on probation under Section 6(2) of Probation of Offenders Act. Accused convicted and sentenced under Section 61(1)(a) of Excise Act. Accused a young man, first offender and only bread-winner of family. Accused released on probation. Accused convicted for distilling illicit liquor. One of the accused 70 years of age and the other of 25 years of age. Accused not previous convicts and having no bad antecedents. Both the accused released of probation to enable them to become good citizens and abandon idea of committing offences. Accused convicted under Excise Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. Accused not a previous convict and faced agony of trial for 3 years. Accused re- leased on probation. Fine imposed by trial court also set aside. Accused convicted under Section 61 (1)( c). Both the accused youthful first offenders. Occurrence took place in 1981. Accused released on Probation. It would not be conducive to moral health of accused if they are sent to jail. Accused found in possession of a drum of Lahan fit for containing 20 kg. of Lahan for dis- tillation of illicit liquor. Official witnesses testimony consistent. Accused first offender and 23 years of age}n the circumstances of the case that the accused given benefit of probation of Offenders Act. Accused found working a still distilling illicit liquor 20 kg. of lahan and two bottles of distilled liquor recovered. Accused being a first offender. No person given by both the Courts as to why benefit of probation be denied to him. Quantity of lahan recovered not being large and the accused a first offender, held, entitled to be released on probation for two years and di- rected to pay Rs. 500/- as costs towards prosecution under Section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Accused not a previous convict and also nothing on record against his character. Accused released on Probation. Prescription of minimum sentence under Section 16(1)(c) is no bar to grant of benefit of Probation. Accused released on probation because recovery was affected 5 years ago and the accused was first offender and remained on bail throughout. Prescription of minimum sentence is no bar to grant benefit of probation for special reasons. Accused sentenced to imprisonment and fine. Accused a youthful offender. No previous conviction. Though minimum punishment is provided for offence under Section 61 (1)( c), yet the accused being below 21 years should not have been sentenced to imprisonment. Accused released on probation by the High court. Accused sentenced to R.I. for 8 months and fine of Rs. 1000/- by Sessions Judge. Prayer for release on probation. Declined by trial Court as well as Sessions Judge on the ground of 40 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered. Accused a young man aged 26 years and a first of- fender. Revision before High court. Accused held entitled to benefit of probation and ordered to be released on probation for two years and his sentence affine set aside. However, he was ordered to pay Rs. 500/ as litigation costs to the Occurrence took place in 1976. Sentence reduced to 3 months R.I. Accused youthful persons and first offenders. Sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed upon him by trial Court and affirmed by Sessions. Revision before the High Court. Sentences imposed by the Courts below set aside as illegal and accused released on probation of good conduct. Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 360 and 361. Conviction recorded against father and son. Son only about 16 years of age and a first offender. Circumstances showing that he committed the offence under the influence of his father. On these facts, son held entitled to be released on probation under Section 360, C.P.c. Conviction under. Benefit of Probation denied to the accused by trial Court as well as by Sessions judge on the ground that 40 bottles of illicit liquor have been recovered. Accused a young man of about 26 years and first offender. Accused held entitled to the benefit of proba- tion. Sentence of fine also set aside. Accused however ordered to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation costs to the State. Petitioner found working a still in his house. Petitioner aged about 72 years and first offender. Held, entitled to the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and released on probation. Probation. Accused convicted under Section 61(1)(a). Accused a young man and first of- fender and only bread winner. Accused faced trial for two years. Fit case for release on probation. Probation. Working Still recovered and accused convicted. One of the accused 22 years old and the other 35 years. Not previous convicts. Faced trial for 5-1/2 years. Accused released on probation.. Recovery of 20 bottles of illicit liquor. Accused convicted and sentenced to 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000/- Accused a first offender with good antecedents. Accused released on probation. Recovery of 20 bottles of liquor. Accused convicted under Section 61(1)(a). Accused a young man, 1st offender and two minor children to support. Accused released on probation because in jail he was likely to come i1} contact with hardened criminals and might ultimately become a hardened criminal himself. Recovery of 30 kgs. of lahan. Accused convicted and sentenced. Accused a first offender and not indulging in illicit li9uor on a large scale. Fit case to release the accused on probation. Recovery of 40 bottles of illicit liquor. Accused convicted under Punjab Excise Act and sen- tenced to one year R.I. and fine. Accused first offender having clean antecedents. Accused released on probation. Probation of Offenders Act, Section 4. Recovery of illicit liquor. Conviction of accused. Accused below 20 years at the time of commission of offence. Accused released on probation. It is not necessary to call for a report of Probation Officer for releasing an offender1ynder Section 6(2) of Probation of Offenders Act. Probation of Offenders Act Section 6(2). Recovery of illicit liquor. Conviction of accused. Accused first offender and on bail for about for 4 years. Accused released on probation. Recovery of working still. Accused convicted. Accused first offender, a very poor person and faced trial for about 7 years. Accused released on probation. Accused to pay Rs. 5000/- as costs of litigation. Fine to be adjusted towards costs. Recovery of working still. Conviction of accused. Accused 50 years of age and not a pre- vious convict. No further criminal case under Excise Act committed by him. Accused released on probation. Sentence of fine also set aside. Recovery of working still. Conviction of accused. Accused less than 21 years and not pre- vious convicts. Accused released on probation to have an opportunity to reform themselves. Sentence of fine also set aside. Mere fact that minimum punishment is prescribed under Sec- tion 61 (1) ( c) would not be sufficient to deprive the benefit of probation.