Jagvir Kumar v. State Of Punjab
!
%
!"!#$ & " " "'
)
& *+
,--( )
&
),(
$
% &
/
) 1'
%%
/
&
%-
/
3$434 /
3'
/34 /)
-0
)
(
.
--1 ((!#)! #*! !)$+,# !#$!#)!
3$434
%
6
'(
7 /
%
'
'
-0
8 -0(
8(
9 '%
7%
(
+ --%
'
'
%
- - :
-0(
;
%
;
(
%-
<
1'-
0
%-
$
1''
-
(
-1 -0
-
%
(
< -0(
-1
-0
'
0
Per contra(
%%
$
%%
1 &
%'
-1
)%%
'
'
= >
%
?
/ 3'
@
%1
%% %
" -
-0( 8= 8=
- --1
-
)
1
'
>9$-
Som Dutt and others Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 722
& .
(
"6.
...having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall be released on probation of good conduct....."
)
1
'
>9$-
Lakhvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763
'
-(
"6.
We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self' reliant members of society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved."
--(
1
'
>9$-
Lakahnlal @ Lakahn Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 100 % --1 "15.
We find that the attention of the Court was not drawn to sub' section (10) of Section 360 which provides that Section 360 will not affect the provisions of 1958 Act or other similar laws for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Still further, Section 4 of the 1958 Act has a non obstante clause, giving overriding effect over any other provisions of law. 16.
The conjoint reading of the provisions of both the statutes, we find that the provisions of Section 360 of the Code are in addition to the provisions of the 1958 Act or the Children Act, 1960, or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders"
. /
>9$-
>'
>
Vijay Kumar Jindal v. State of Punjab, (P&H) +/+#01 !2+"+,# , 3 ,( 4 ( %
5"$+)! 6+ !#*! +#78
B8. Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution at all that allopathic medicines, which were found in the possession of the petitioner were spurious or adulterated. The petitioner is otherwise having a letter of Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines, Jaipur. As per the allegations, he could not practise in allopathic. I am of the view that the judgment rendered in Surinder Kumar Verma's case (supra) squarely covers the case of the present petitioner for the purpose of benefit of probation and I do no find any reason as to why this prayer should not be allowed. In both the above said cases, it has been observed by this Court that no doubt the minimum punishment has been provided in the Act for the offence committed by the petitioner but it cannot be con2 sidered a bar to refuse the benefit of probation.
In Surinder Kumar Verma's case (supra), this Court has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Joginder Singh's case (supra). In the said case also the drugs were not found spurious or adulterated. The recovery was effected in 1983 and keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was granted the benefit of probation. In my con' sidered view, the present petitioner also deserves the same relief.'
>@$-
Bishnu Deo Shah Vs. State of West Banal AIR 1979 SC 964 1
$-
8=
(
'
%
-
--0(
' $#
=
8= 8=
%%
C%
$
0
3 7
% (
--1
.'
/
)
%'
-
/
' &
'
'
$ (6
'
+(
'
+
.'
'
?
7
-
%-0
'
% '
'
%
%
% '
&
'
.
3 D'
+6
6* D'
%
6*