The court held that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 applies to offenders above 21 years, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.

Order :

1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 397 of CrPC assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.07.2004 passed by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Case No.82/1997, whereby the trial Court convicted the accused- petitioner for the offence punishable u/S 72 of the JDA Act, 1982 and sentenced him to undergo six month’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-. The petitioner had further challenged the aforesaid order/judgment dated 01.07.2004 passed by the trial Court by filing a Criminal Appeal bearing No.59/2005 before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the Appellate Court’), whereby the learned Court vide order dated 01.09.2005 had reduced the sentence passed by the trial Court to one months’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-.

2. On filing of this revision petition, the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner was suspended vide order dated 09.09.2005 and he was released on bail.

3. Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner instead of arguing the appeal on its merits with regard to challenge to the conviction and sentence, confines his arguments for grant of benefit of probation to the petitioner under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’). Counsel further submits that except the present case, no case has been registered against the accused-petitioner. Counsel further submits that the accused- petitioner are living peacefully in the society without there being any criminal antecedents to his discredit. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner has faced trial for about 21 years. Thus, from the last about 21 years, the accused petitioner is facing mental agony and harassment because of pendency of criminal case registered against him. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the accused-petitioner may be given the benefit of probation under the provisions of the Act of 1958.

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the prayer made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any kind of leniency in granting the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958.

5. Considered the submissions made by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Since the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has confined his prayer only to the extent of grant of probation to him under the provisions of the Act of 1958, this Court is examining the matter only to this extent.

7. Section 4 of the Act of 1958 nowhere says that the benefit of probation cannot be allowed to an accused who is above 21 years of age. The Act of 1958 deals with the powers of the Court to release certain offenders for good conduct. Section 4 of the Act of 1958 reads as under:-

“4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.—(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless i