D.K. Sinha, J.@mdashThe petitioner has preferred this Cr. Revision against the order impugned passed by Shri Santosh Kumar, Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 208 of 2006 corresponding to T.R. No. 501 of 2008 whereby the Court having taken
the lenient view, released the accused i.e. O.P. Nos. 3 & 4 after according them benefit u/s 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act though they were
convicted under Sections 323 and 341 IPC and at the same time acquitted the O.P. No. 2 Babla Nandi.
2. The prosecution story in short, as presented by the complainant-petitioner herein before the court below, was that he was the owner of a hotel
named and styled as ""Mahajan Palace"", a residential hotel which included marriage hall. On 10.01.2006 the accused O.P. No. 2 (Babla Nandi)
approached the petitioner and took 5 rooms with marriage hall on rent against certain advance for two days from 20.02.2006 to 22.02.2006.
After celebration of the marriage, the rooms and the hall of the hotel were to be checked out on 22.02.2006 at 11.00 a.m. but it could not be by
the O.P. No. 2 though the complainant alleged that the same were booked to another customer. When the complainant-petitioner demanded the
additional rent for the extended period of occupation of rooms and hall, it was alleged that he was threatened and assaulted at the hands of the
members of the Opposite Party No. 2, 3 and 4 with fists and slaps, causing injuries in his right eye. His life could be saved with the intervention of
the witnesses. He lodged a written complaint at the Sadar Police Station, Hazaribagh and was sent to the Sadar Hospital for treatment and from
there he was referred to RIMS, Ranchi. The complainant explained that as he was unable to move to Ranchi, he consulted Dr. Sujay Samanta, an
eye specialist at Hazaribagh itself on 26.02.2006 and only after 7 months he went to Ranchi where his eyes were treated. The complainant
expressed his agony that though his hotel was situated opposite the Sadar Police Station but no action was taken by the police against the accused
persons, hence the complaint on 07.03.2006 before the C.J.M. The Court after enquiry took cognizance of the offence under Sections 341/323
I.P.C. against the Opposite Party Nos. 2, 3 & 4 and they were put on trial. The complainant adduced evidence and the Trial Court having been
satisfied with the materials on the record convicted only two accused namely Jitendra Nath Nandi and Shubhindu Nandi for the charge under
Sections 341 & 323 I.P.C. whereas Babla Nandi was acquitted. The grievance of the complainant-petitioner was that the accused O.P.No.3 and
4 were convicted but could not be adequately sentenced for their misdeeds as they had brutally assaulted him causing injuries in his eyes and their
release on admonition seriously caused denial of justice and hence the petitioner-complainant challenged the order after their conviction recorded
by the Trial Court by which the convicts were released on admonition as no substantial justice could be met out.
3. Learned A.P.P. submitted that on appreciation of the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant and having been satisfied with the
materials on the record, the Trial Court convicted the accused Jitendra Nath Nandi and Shubhindu Nandi i.e. the O.P. No. 3 and 4 heroin for the
said charge but by recording detailed reasons, the Trial Court preferred to release them on admonition by extending benefit enshrined u/s 3 of the
Probation of Offenders Act It was held that the accused being the first offenders of the offence and the offence being trivial in nature and that the
occurrence had taken place on sudden provocation, the Trial Court took a lenient view on the ground that one of the convicts was Medical
Representative whereas another was young man and both of them undertook that they would be careful in future and would not repeat the
occurrence.
4. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the judgment impugned, I am in agreement with the view taken by the Trial Court
that the occurrence took place on sudden provocation and on passion of heat, preceded by hot exchange of words and altercation. I find that there
was lack of pre-meditation and mensrea and no criminal antecedent was reported against the accused persons, therefore, the Trial Court was
justified in arriving at such observation. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant failed to show any ground so as to call for interference
in the order of sentence recorded by the Trial Court.
5. It is relevant to quote the provisions of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for more clarity and I find that the member of
Opposite Party fulfill such criteria for admonition.
Section-3 Power of Court to release certain offenders after admonition.-
When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable u/s 379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section 404 or Section 420
of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with Imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under
the Indian Penal Code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of
opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case Including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, It is expedient so
to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him to any
punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct u/s 4 release him after due admonition.
Explanation: For the purpose of this Section, previous conviction against a person shall Include any previous order made against him under this
Section or Section 4.
In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Criminal Revision. Hence it is dismissed.