Probation in Sessions Cases After BNSS: Why Maharashtra Courts Must Apply the Probation of Offenders Act First

A recurring sentencing issue before criminal courts in Maharashtra is whether probation can be granted in a sessions-triable offence, particularly where the offence is punishable up to five years and involves obstruction or assault on a public servant. The correct legal position is that the court must first examine the case under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, because the special probation law continues to govern eligible cases even under the BNSS framework.

The common error is to assume that once an offence is triable by the Court of Session, probation is ruled out. That assumption is legally unsound, because the real statutory bar under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is not the forum of trial, but whether the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Introductory note

Print Page

Supreme Court: The court must call report of probation officer before considering the grant of benefit of probation to accused

 We are conscious that in MCD (supra), since followed in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Man Singh   MANU/SC/1505/2019 : 2019:INSC:1201 : (2019) 10 SCC 161, this Court has held that the report of the probation officer referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Probation Act is a condition precedent and, therefore, must be complied with by the trial courts and the high courts. Importantly, it has also been held that the courts may not be bound by such report. {Para 30}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2065 of 2025 

Decided On: 22.04.2025

Chellammal and Ors. Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, JJ.

Author: Dipankar Datta, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 540, MANU/SC/0538/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Court Can’t Omit From Its Consideration Release Of Offender On Probation Unless Applicability Is Excluded In Case Where S. 4(1) Probation Act Is Attracted

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 Sub-section (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. {Para 28}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2065 of 2025 

Decided On: 22.04.2025

Chellammal and Ors. Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, JJ.

Author: Dipankar Datta, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 540, MANU/SC/0538/2025

Print Page

Silent Defendants, Noisy Records: How District Judges Should Handle Undefended Partition Appeals and Additional Evidence

 When a defendant appears but never files a written statement, and yet the trial court dismisses a partition suit with minimal reasoning, the real work shifts to the first appellate court. For District Judges, such appeals are a common—and delicate—test of how far one can go on the existing record, how to treat additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, and how strictly to enforce the “no new case in appeal” rule.

This article distils core principles from the CPC, the Evidence Act and leading Supreme Court decisions, using the typical pattern of a partition suit based on revenue records, an absent written statement, unrebutted plaintiff’s evidence, and an Order XLI Rule 27 application for certified 7/12 extracts or similar public documents.

“First appeals are not a mere formality; the District Court is the final court on facts.”

Print Page