Probation Of Offenders Act | No Discretion To Deny Release Of Convict On Probation When Conditions Are Met : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that when the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act (“Act”) apply to a convict's release, the court has no discretion to disregard the possibility of granting probation.

“Summing up the legal position, it can be said that while an offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation as a matter of right but having noticed the object that the statutory provisions seek to achieve by grant of probation and the several decisions of this Court on the point of applicability of Section 4 of the Probation Act, we hold that, unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act are attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its consideration release of the offender on probation; on the contrary, a mandatory duty is cast upon the court to consider whether the case before it warrants releasing the offender upon fulfilment of the stated circumstances. The question of grant of probation could be decided either way. In the event, the court in its discretion decides to extend the benefit of probation, it may upon considering the report of the probation officer impose such conditions as deemed just and proper. However, if the answer be in the negative, it would only be just and proper for the court to record the reasons therefor.”, the Court observed.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan set aside the impugned judgment, where the High Court failed to examine whether probation could be granted to the Appellant-convict, despite the Appellants being found eligible to seek benefit under the Act.

The Appellants approached the Supreme Court not to challenge their conviction but to seek probation instead of a one-year imprisonment, relying on Section 360 CrPC, which allows courts to release first-time offenders over 21 years age on probation for good conduct if the offence is punishable with a fine or imprisonment up to seven years.

Noting that the Courts below have erred in not considering the Appellants' plea for probation, which casts a mandatory duty upon the Courts to consider whether the case before it warrants the release of the offender upon fulfilment of the stated circumstance or not.

In support, the court drawn reference from the case of Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 245 where it was held that after recording a conviction it is mandatory for the courts to consider the stated circumstances and, instead of sentencing the offender at once to any punishment, determine whether he deserves extension of the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation Act.

“For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the factual matrix, we are unhesitatingly of the opinion that the Sessions Judge and the High Court by omitting to consider whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of probation, occasioned a failure of justice. Consequently, there was no worthy consideration as to whether the appellants could be extended the benefit of probation.”, the court observed.

“Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction recorded against the appellants but looking to the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to remit the matter to the High Court for limited consideration of the question of grant of probation to the appellants upon obtaining a report of the relevant probation officer. It is ordered accordingly.”, the court held.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: CHELLAMMAL AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 461

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Rajaraman, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR