Supreme Court: Presumption regarding documents 30 years old as per S 90 of evidence Act does not apply to a will

 This Court, in M.B. Ramesh (D) by L.Rs. v. K.M. Veeraje Urs (D) by L. Rs. and Ors.,8 while dealing with a similar argument regarding applicability of Section 90 in the case of proof of will, held as follows:

At the same time we cannot accept the submission on behalf of the Respondents as well that merely because the will was more than 30 years old, a presumption Under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('Evidence Act' for short) ought to be drawn that the document has been duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed and attested. As held by this Court in Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh reported in   MANU/SC/8404/2008 : 2009 (3) SCC 687, a presumption regarding documents 30 years old does not apply to a will. A will has to be proved in terms of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act. {Para 12}

Ratio:

The presumption under Section 90 of Evidence Act, 1872 as to the regularity of documents more than thirty years of age is inapplicable when it comes to proof of wills, which have to be proved in terms of Sections 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7775 of 2021 

Decided On: 14.03.2023

Ashutosh Samanta (D) by L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Ranjan Bala Dasi and Ors. 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli, JJ.

Author: S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0233/2023

Print Page

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