The Allahabad High Court has released an appellant on probation of good conduct in a criminal case dating back to 1982, strongly criticizing the trial court for failing to record special reasons for denying the benefit of probation as mandated by law.
Justice Nand Prabha Shukla partly allowed the appeal filed by the surviving appellant, Ashok, maintaining his conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but substituting the sentence of imprisonment with a direction to release him on probation.
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged the judgment and order dated September 21, 1984, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 379 of 1983. The Trial Court had convicted the appellants for offences under Section 323/34 IPC. Specifically, the appellant Ashok was sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment.
During the pendency of the appeal, which spanned over four decades, co-appellants Shamsher Singh and Balbir passed away, and the appeal regarding them was abated on August 4, 2022. The case against the sole surviving appellant, Ashok, proceeded to a hearing.
Arguments
The counsel for the appellant, Mr. H.S. Nigam, submitted that he was “not inclined to argue the case on merits” and sought the benefit of probation for the appellant. It was argued that the appellant had been convicted for an offence under Section 323/34 IPC and the matter was extremely old.
The counsel relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Subhash Chand & others Vs. State of U.P. (2015 Law Suit (All) 1343) and Hargovind & Others vs. State of U.P. to press for the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Court extensively analyzed the statutory provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, specifically Sections 3 and 4, as well as Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Justice Shukla observed that the Trial Court had failed to discharge its “bounden duty” to consider why the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act was not granted. The Court noted that Section 361 Cr.P.C. mandates that if a court does not deal with an accused under Section 360 Cr.P.C. or the Probation of Offenders Act, “it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so.”
In a sharp critique of the lower court’s omission, the High Court noted:
“The learned court below did not even write a single word as to why the benefit of this beneficial legislation was not given to the accused whereas it was mandatory to do so under the provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the occurrence relates to the year 1982 and therefore, no purpose of justice will be served if the appellant is sent to jail to undergo the terms of sentence after lapse of such long time.”
The Court underscored the reformatory nature of the law, stating:
“This branch of law has not been much utilized by the trial courts. It becomes more relevant and important in our system of administration of justice where trial is often concluded after a long time and by the time decision assumes finality, the very purpose of sentencing looses its efficacy as with the passage of time the penological and social priorities change and there remains no need to inflict punishment of imprisonment, particularly when the offence involved is not serious.”
Cited Precedents
The Court relied on several key Supreme Court judgments to support the decision:
- Ratan Lal vs State of Punjab (AIR 1965 SC 444): The Court quoted the Apex Court’s observation that the Act is a “milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology.”
- Ved Prakash vs State of Haryana ((1981) 1 SCC 447): The judgment highlighted the Supreme Court’s direction that “sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting on hunch.”
- State of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand ((2004) 7 SCC 659): The Court noted that in trivial disputes between neighbors, the benefit of probation is appropriate.
- Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan (2025 INSC 46): The Court referred to this recent judgment where an appellant of advanced age was released on probation.
Decision
Taking into account that the incident occurred in 1982, the appellant is now of advanced age, and has no criminal antecedents, the High Court held that it was a fit case to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
The Court ordered:
“Hence, while maintaining the conviction, it is directed that, appellant Ashok be released giving the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Consequently, the appellant shall file two sureties with personal bonds before District Probation Officer concerned and also an undertaking to keep peace and good behaviour for the period of three months from the date of filing of bail bonds.”
The Court clarified that if there is a breach of any conditions, the appellant “shall be taken into and shall be called upon to undergo sentence imposed by Trial Court.”
The appeal was partly allowed with the modification in the sentence.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Samsher Singh and Others Versus State
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2886 of 1984
- Coram: Justice Nand Prabha Shukla
- Counsel for Appellants: H.S. Nigam
- Counsel for Respondent: A.G.A., Shyam Shanker Pandey
- Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:210224
