Probation of Offenders Act applies irrespective of age; cannot be denied solely due to offender's age or acquittals in prior cases; positive probation report and family circumstances justify grant over bleak reformation presumption.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 01.04.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla (learned Appellate Court) vide which the order dated 05.07.2014, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla (learned Trial Court), extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) was set aside. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Learned Trial Court tried and convicted the accused Hasan Ali of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned Trial Court called for the report of the Probation Officer, who recommended the grant of probation to the accused. Learned Trial Court accepted the report and extended the benefit of probation subject to the furnishing of personal and surety bonds of Rs.50,000/-, undertaking to maintain peace, and good behaviour and not to commit any offence for two years from the date of granting the benefit i.e. 05.07.2014

3. Aggrieved by the benefit extended to the accused, the State filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court held that the convict was aged 54 years. His chances of reformation and rehabilitation were few. The accused was involved in several criminal cases and could not be granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, the order passed by the learned Trial Court for extending the Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court to decide it afresh as per the law.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, the petitioner/accused has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Appellate Court erred in setting aside the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act extended to him. The petitioner was aged 54 years. He had four children, an aged mother, and an ailing wife. The Probation Officer had recommended the grant of probation, and the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act was rightly extended to him. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside.

5. I have heard Mr S.C. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

6. Mr S.C. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court had rightly extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused, and the learned Appellate Court erred in setting aside the benefit. The conduct of the petitioner was not found blame-worthy from the date of extending the benefit. The benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be denied simply because the person is aged 54 years and the learned Appellate Court erred in holding otherwise. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside. He relied upon the judgments of Som Dutt vs. State of H.P. (2022) 6 SCC 722, Gulzar v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 619 and Desh Raj vs. State of H.P. (2021) 4 Shim. LC 2411 in support of his submission.

7. Mr Ajit S