2016 ALL MR (Cri) 2203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Mithilesh Harishchandra Yadav
Criminal Appeal No.583 of 2015
1st April, 2016
Petitioner Counsel: Mrs. P.P. BHOSALE, A.P.P.
Criminal P.C. (1973), S.377 - Probation of Offenders Act (1958), Ss.4, 11 - Appeal against sentence - Requirements of S.377 CrPC - Appeal filed on ground that instead of sentencing to any punishment, respondent was directed to be released on probation - Held, S.377 speaks of appeal against sentence on ground of inadequacy - As no sentence has been passed, there is no question of 'inadequacy of sentence' and seeking enhancement thereof - Appeal not maintainable. (Para 2)
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT :- The respondent was convicted of offences punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), but instead of sentencing him to any punishment, the learned trial Judge thought it fit to give benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to him. Accordingly, the respondent was directed to be released on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of two years and in the mean time, to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. It is against the said order that the State of Maharashtra has filed the present Appeal, purportedly under the provisions of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code).
2. Section 377 of the Code speaks of an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. In this case, no sentence has been awarded. There is, therefore, no question of 'inadequacy of sentence' and there is no question of seeking 'enhancement' of a non-existing sentence.
3. The Appeal, as filed by State of Maharashtra is not maintainable. The State of Maharashtra shall be at liberty to file an Appeal, as contemplated u/s.11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, if so advised.