Supreme Court: Convicts Sentenced To Only Fine Also Entitled To Benefit Of Probation Of Offender Act

 In light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the expression 'release' has to be read accordingly. In this context, we are of the opinion that 'release' cannot mean release only from custody. It has to be read as releasing from the obligation to serve sentence of payment of fine. This view is further strengthened by the meaning of the word 'release' as contained in Advanced Law Lexicon2. It is defined, inter-alia, as 'to set at liberty'. Therefore, 'release' as contained in Section 4 of 1958 Act should be read as to set the offender at liberty from receiving sentence, even of fine only. {Para 26}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1893 of 2026

Decided On: 10.04.2026

Milind and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: J.K. Maheshwari, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 355, MANU/SC/0351/2026.

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

What Precautions Should a Sessions Judge Take While Passing Sentence After Conviction? A Practical BNSS Guide to Avoid Illegality

 Sentencing is not a routine tailpiece to conviction. Once guilt is recorded, the Sessions Judge enters a distinct judicial stage in which fairness, statutory discipline, and recorded reasons become critical; many otherwise sustainable convictions are exposed to appellate criticism because the sentencing part is casual, mechanical, or incomplete.

Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the safest approach is to treat the process from conviction onward as a structured legal sequence: record a precise finding of guilt, hear the accused on sentence, consider aggravating and mitigating factors, examine previous conviction only in the manner permitted by law, apply probation and compensation provisions where relevant, stay within statutory sentencing limits, grant set-off, and complete all consequential formalities.

Print Page

Questions and answers on law (Part 74)

Q 1:-  What is "tenant holding over" ?

 A distinction should be drawn between a tenant continuing in possession after the determination of the lease, without the consent of the landlord and a tenant doing so with the landlord's consent. The former is called a tenant by sufferance in the language of the English law and the latter class of tenants is called a tenant holding over or a tenant at will. The lessee holding over with the consent of the lessor is in a better position than a mere tenant at will.

Print Page

Case Analysis of Supreme Court Judgment: The Superintending Engineer vs. The Labour Court, Madurai & Others

 

1.0 Factual Matrix: The Foundation of the Dispute

This analysis details a decade-long legal battle catalyzed by an employee's fundamental act of misconduct, which culminated in a landmark Supreme Court judgment clarifying a crucial intersection of Indian criminal and service law. The initial fraud set in motion a series of judicial interventions that tested the relationship between criminal probation and departmental disciplinary action. This section outlines the core facts that served as the genesis of the entire dispute.

Print Page

Can the court grant the benefit of the probation of offenders Act to accused of offences that provide mandatory minimum sentence?

 We are of the view that the corollary to the aforesaid legal decisions ends with a conclusion that the benefit of probation under the said Act is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence under Section 397 of IPC, the offence in the present case. In fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab13 are in the same context.{Para 13}

 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.47-48 OF 2021

LAKHVIR SINGH ETC. Vs  THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 

Author: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

Dated: JANUARY 19, 2021.

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to obtain report of probation officer before releasing accused on probation?

 Another error is that the order quoted hereinabove has been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act which mandates that before releasing any offender on probation of good conduct, the Court must obtain a report from the Probation Officer and can then order his release on his entering bonds with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, or as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep peace and good behaviour. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 4 clearly provides that Court cannot order release of such an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court can exercise jurisdiction. Sub-section (2) lays down that before making any order Under Sub-section (1), the Court shall take into consideration the report of the Probation Officer. This Court in a number of judgments has held that before passing an order of probation, it is essential to obtain the report of the Probation Officer concerned. Reference in this behalf may be made to M.C.D. v. State of Delhi and Anr. MANU/SC/0376/2005 : AIR 2005 SC 2658.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 2011

Decided On: 04.11.2019

State of Madhya Pradesh  Vs. Man Singh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.

Print Page

Study material on plea bargaining

[Chapter XXI-A

PLEA BARGAINING

265-A. Application of the chapter.—(1) This chapter shall apply in respect of an accused against whom—

(a) the report has been forwarded by the officer in charge of the police station under Section 173 alleging therein that an offence appears to have been committed by him other than an offence for which the punishment of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years has been provided under the law for the time being in force; or

(b) a Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence on complaint, other than an offence for which the punishment of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years, has been provided under the law for the time being in force, and after examining complainant and witnesses under Section 200, issued the process under Section 204,

but does not apply where such offence affects the socio-economic condition of the country or has been committed against a woman, or a child below the age of fourteen years.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the Central Government shall, by notification, determine the offences under the law for the time being in force which shall be the offences affecting the socio-economic condition of the country.

Print Page

Whether accused can ask court to call report under probation of offender Act?

In the case of Dnyandeo Bhade (Supra), the benefit

of probation of Offenders Act was granted by Court without

calling for report. The Court feel that although it is mandatory to

call for report, calling such report, it would be futile exercise and

waste of judicial time to remand matter to trial Court for passing

appropriate order. The accused in that case were convicted under

Sections 325 and 341 read with 34 of IPC.

18 Such powers are required to be exercised when it is

expedient to release the person under the provisions of Probation

of Offender's Act. The Court has to look into the factual aspects of

the case, circumstances of the case including the nature of the

offence and the character of the offender and after considering

the said aspects, if the Court finds it is proper to exercise its

inherent powers under the provisions of the Probation of

Offender's Act, such a facility can be provided to the accused

after calling for report of probation of offenders Act. The

submission that it is mandatory to call for report, whenever

application is made for invoking provisions of said Act as a matter

of course and deIn the case of Dnyandeo Bhade (Supra), the benefit

of probation of Offenders Act was granted by Court without

calling for report. The Court feel that although it is mandatory to

call for report, calling such report, it would be futile exercise and

waste of judicial time to remand matter to trial Court for passing

appropriate order. The accused in that case were convicted under

Sections 325 and 341 read with 34 of IPC.

18 Such powers are required to be exercised when it is

expedient to release the person under the provisions of Probation

of Offender's Act. The Court has to look into the factual aspects of

the case, circumstances of the case including the nature of the

offence and the character of the offender and after considering

the said aspects, if the Court finds it is proper to exercise its

inherent powers under the provisions of the Probation of

Offender's Act, such a facility can be provided to the accused

after calling for report of probation of offenders Act. The

submission that it is mandatory to call for report, whenever

application is made for invoking provisions of said Act as a matter

of course and decide the application cannot be accepted. This

would lead to situation that every accused would prefer such

application and would insists upon calling for report of Probation

Officer. In the present case,such report was not warranted and

trial Court was not inclined to exercise the powers considering

the nature of crime committed by applicant accused. Such powers

cannot be exercised randomly in every case. The offences against

children who are vulnerable sections of society are anti social.

The Courts are required to exercise utmost caution in

interpreting provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. cide the application cannot be accepted. This

would lead to situation that every accused would prefer such

application and would insists upon calling for report of Probation

Officer. In the present case,such report was not warranted and

trial Court was not inclined to exercise the powers considering

the nature of crime committed by applicant accused. Such powers

cannot be exercised randomly in every case. The offences against

children who are vulnerable sections of society are anti social.

The Courts are required to exercise utmost caution in

interpreting provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.269 OF 2018

Nishant Harishchandra Salvi Vs. The State of Maharashtra 

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATED : JUNE 18, 2018.

Print Page

Whether court should give benefit of probation of offenders Act in case of death in Road Accident?

  Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents

in India and the devastating consequences visiting the

victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the

nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as

attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the

Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the

quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of

causing death by rash or negligent driving of

automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be

deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator

of the automobile almost throughout his working hours.

He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford

to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when

his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He

cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash

driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even

if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the

death of any human being; or even if such death ensues

he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that

even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by

the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear

psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing

death of a human being due to his callous driving of the

vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the

role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of

trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents

due to callous driving of automobiles.’(Dalbir Singh

vs.State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82, SCC pp.84-85 &

87, paras 1 & 13)”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 85 of 2009.

Date of decision: 24th March, 2018.

Santosh Kumar  V State of Himachal Pradesh. 

Coram

 Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Print Page

Whether accused convicted U/S 394 of IPC can be released on probation of offender Act?

 Thus, merely because the maximum sentence of life could have
been awarded under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, it would be no
ground for not granting the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the
respondent. The Court has a discretion in matters of sentencing and the
sentencing process would hinge on the nature and circumstances of the
case.
16. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Dharam Pal: (2004) 9 SCC 681,
the accused was convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the
IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and was directed to
pay a fine. In appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but
considering the relationship and the age of the accused, applied Section 4
of the Probation of Offenders Act and directed for his release on
probation of good conduct. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case,
though took into account that the offence charged was one under Section
376 but held that the Probation of Offenders Act is intended to reform the
person who can be reformed and would cease to be a nuisance in the
society. The Supreme Court was of the view that the discretion to
exercise the jurisdiction under the Act is hedged with a condition about
the nature of offence and the character of the offender. The order of the
High Court was, therefore, affirmed and upheld by the Supreme Court.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Delivered on: 17.05.2017
 CRL.A.539/2016
STATE 
v
LUCKY 
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Print Page

Principles to be followed by court while releasing accused on probation?

 We have referred to the aforesaid authority to stress the
point that the Court before exercising the power under Section
4 of the PO Act has to keep in view the nature of offence and
the conditions incorporated under Section 4 of the PO Act. Be
it stated in Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others
AIR 2000 SC 1677
it has been held that Parliament has made it clear that only if
the Court forms the opinion that it is expedient to release the
convict on probation for the good conduct regard being had to
the circumstances of the case and one of the circumstances
which cannot be sidelined in forming the said opinion is “the
nature of the offence”. The Court has further opined that
though the discretion as been vested in the court to decide
when and how the court should form such opinion, yet the
provision itself provides sufficient indication that releasing the
convicted person on probation of good conduct must appear to
the Court to be expedient. 
10. It was then held that the court must construe
the said word in keeping with the context and object
of the provision in its widest amplitude. Here the
word “expedient” is used in Section 4 of the PO Act
in the context of casting a duty on the court to take
into account “the circumstances of the case including
the nature of the offence…”. This means Section
4 can be resorted to when the court considers the
circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of
the offence, and the court forms its opinion that it is
suitable and appropriate for accomplishing a specified
object that the offender can be released on probation
of good conduct.”
We have also opined that the court has to be guided by
the provisions of the PO Act and the precedents of this Court.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances in entirety,
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1218 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 6104 of 2014)
Mohd. Hashim 
 V
State of UP & Ors. 
Dated:November 28, 2016.
Citation:(2017) 2 SCC198

Print Page

Whether court can reduce sentence if legislature has prescribed minimum sentence without discretion?

When the legislature has prescribed minimum sentence without discretion, the same cannot be reduced by the Courts. In such cases, imposition of minimum sentence, be it imprisonment or fine, is mandatory and leaves no discretion to the court. However, sometimes the legislation prescribes a minimum sentence but grants discretion and the courts, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may award a lower sentence or not award a sentence of imprisonment. Such discretion includes the discretion not to send the accused to prison. Minimum sentence means a sentence which must be imposed without leaving any discretion to the court. It means a quantum of punishment which cannot be reduced below the period fixed. If the sentence can be reduced to nil, then the statute does not prescribe a minimum sentence. A provision that gives discretion to the court not to award minimum sentence cannot be equated with a provision which prescribes minimum sentence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Before Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, JJ.)

Mohd. Hashim v.  State of U.P. & Ors. 

Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of 2016

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 6104 of 2014)

Decided on November 28, 2016

Citation:2016 SCC OnLine SC 1440,(2017) 2 SCC 198

Print Page

When disqualification to contest municipal election is removed?

 In view of the aforesaid position of law the disqualification
of the petitioner was removed by virtue of Section 12 of the Probation of
Offenders Act and such removal operated from 25.06.2007.   It cannot
therefore, be said that the petitioner was disqualified under Section 10 of
the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, on the date of his
election i.e. on 16.04.2012 as a Member of the Municipal Corporation
from Prabhag No.21­B.  The trial Court has committed an error of law in
setting aside the election petition of the petitioner on such ground.  The
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   trial   Court   cannot,   therefore,   be
sustained.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.782 OF 2015
Karimuddin @ Karimlala Kazi,

V 
 Deepak s/o Shankarlal Jaiswal,

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
CORAM:  R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE:          26th   AUGUST, 2015.
Citation:2016(5) ALLMR 119

Print Page

When court can order removal of disqualification attached to conviction as per probation of offenders Act?

Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case  and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused petitioner is not the habitual offender, no case is made out against him, I think it just and proper to give benefit of Sec.12 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner so that this order will not come in the way of petitioner in future.

In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed with the following directions:
i) The conviction of the petitioner is maintained.
ii) The accused petitioner is extended the benefit of Sec.12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, so that the impugned judgments will not affect his future in any way.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PET. NO. 1415/2014

(Mohan Swaroop  Vs. State)

 DATE OF JUDGMENT                28.1.2016
 MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

Print Page

Guidelines of Bombay High Court under Probation of Offenders Act

 Criminal
Manual issued by the High Court in Chapter XI paragraph 4
has given guidelines under the Probation of Offenders Act
as under :-
“4. The Act lays down three
distinctive methods of treatment for different
classes of offenders :-
(a) Section 3 deals exclusively
with first offenders, who are convicted of an
offence punishable with not more than two
years' imprisonment. It provides for release
of such offenders after due admonition. This
method of treatment is likely to be effective
only for a small number of offenders, as it
provides neither for bonds nor sureties and
merely sends the offender back, without any
constructive help, to live in the same
conditions, in which he lived when he
committed the offence.
(b) Section 4 (1) provides for
release on probation. It lays down that the
offender should enter into a bond and he may
also be required to give sureties. It would
normally be advisable to take sureties in
addition to personal bonds, as sureties are
themselves a guarantee of some efforts
towards reform and a safeguard against the

offender removing himself outside the
jurisdiction of the Court and breaking the
conditions of the bond entered into by him.
(c) Section 4 (2) provides for
release under the supervision of a Probation
Officer. This is the most constructive type of
treatment. Experience has proved that
offenders are far more likely to make good,
when placed under the guidance of a
Probation Officer. It is, therefore, advisable
that even in the case of first offenders, they
should be dealt with under Section 4(2) in
preference to discharge after admonition
under Section 3.
(d) Under Section 4(3), the
Court has power, while making a supervision
order, to direct additional conditions to be
inserted in the bond to be entered into by the
offender under Section 4(1), and in doing so
the Court must have regard to the particular
circumstances of each individual case.
The terms and conditions of the
supervision order shall be explained to the
offenders and one copy of the supervision
order shall be furnished forthwith to each of
the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the
Probation Officer concerned. The form of

supervision order has been prescribed under
the Rules made under the Act.
(e) In suitable cases, the
offender may be directed under Section 5 to
pay compensation and cost of proceedings to
the person to whom loss or injury has been
caused.
(f) During the period of his
probation, the offender has to keep away
from crime and maintain good behaviour. If
he fails to do so, he may be sentenced for the
offence of which he was convicted, or on such
first time failure, a penalty of fine not
exceeding fifty rupees may be imposed upon
him under Section 9 (3) of the Act.
(g) According to the mandatory
provision of Section 6, when any person
under 21 years of age is found guilty of an
offence punishable with imprisonment (not
for life), before passing any order of sentence
of imprisonment, the Court shall call for a
report from the District Probation Officer,
consider such report, if any, and then record
its reasons and pass such order to sentence
of imprisonment (except for life), as it deems
fit in the circumstances of the case.”

33] Keeping in view these guidelines as well as the
provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, being major is
not a disqualification for consideration under the Probation
of Offenders Act. If the person has not been found guilty of
the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life,
the provisions of the Act need to be considered, specially
when the accused is first time offender. The facts of the
case, social background and personal factors of the
accused are relevant. Under the proviso to Sub Section 1
of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the Court is
required to ascertain whether the accused has a fixed place
of abode or regular occupation. Sub Section 2 of Section 4
lays down that the Court “shall” take into consideration the
report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation
to the case. Thus, calling of the report of probation officer is
necessary while considering the provisions of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958. In the present matter, the judgment
of the trial Court does not show that it called for the report

of probation officer.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2011

Bapu Vithalrao Jadhav,  Vs State of Maharashtra,

 CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
 A.I.S.CHEEMA, JJ.
Pronounced on: 22.09.2015
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2107

Print Page

Whether accused can be denied benefit of probation of offenders Act on ground that he is major?

 Keeping in view these guidelines as well as the
provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, being major is
not a disqualification for consideration under the Probation
of Offenders Act. If the person has not been found guilty of
the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life,
the provisions of the Act need to be considered, specially
when the accused is first time offender. The facts of the
case, social background and personal factors of the
accused are relevant. Under the proviso to Sub Section 1
of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the Court is
required to ascertain whether the accused has a fixed place
of abode or regular occupation. Sub Section 2 of Section 4
lays down that the Court “shall” take into consideration the
report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation
to the case. Thus, calling of the report of probation officer is
necessary while considering the provisions of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958. In the present matter, the judgment
of the trial Court does not show that it called for the report
of probation officer.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2011
Bapu s/o. Vithalrao Jadhav,

VERSUS
 State of Maharashtra,

 CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
 A.I.S.CHEEMA, JJ.

Pronounced on: 22.09.2015
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2107

Print Page

Whether appeal is maintainable if accused is released under probation of offenders Act?

 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). 
 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 non­existing sentence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.583 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra V Mithilesh Harishchandra Yadav .
­­­

­­­
   CORAM :   ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATED  :    1st  APRIL 2016
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2203

Print Page