The court emphasizes the rehabilitation of first offenders through probation rather than imprisonment, aligning with the objectives of the Probation of Offenders Act.

JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 30.10.2019, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Budhlada (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in case titled as State vs. Balvir Singh and others, arising out of FIR No. 23 dated 27.04.2016, registered under Sections 148, 325, 323, 427 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Bareta, whereby the petitioner had been held guilty and convicted under Sections 148 and 323 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of maximum one year along with default clause of fine, and also against the judgment dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellate Court’), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner and other co-accused had been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that he does not intend to press the petition on the grounds as taken in the revision petition and restricts his argument to the extent that benefit of probation be granted to the petitioner. In view thereof, the sole consideration before this Court is as to whether the prayer made by the petitioner for extending benefit of probation can be accepted or not?

3. As mentioned above, the petitioner had been held guilty by the trial Court for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. Her appeal had been dismissed by the appellate Court as mentioned above. The petitioner is facing rigors of litigation from the last more about 09 years. Much water has flown since then. The petitioner has already undergone actual imprisonment a period of 20 days and in the intervening period, she is not involved in any other criminal case. She is leading happy and peaceful life with her family. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of probation.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has no serious objection to the limited prayer made by the petitioner.

5. Before considering the prayer made by the petitioner to release her on probation, let us have a look on the law on this point. The aims and object of the Probation Act came to be decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar , 1972 AIR (SC) 2522. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of the Probation Act had held as under:-

"The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on probation or after due admonition and for matters connected therewith. The object of the Act is to prevent the conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals of mature age in case the youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail. The above object is in consequence with the present trend in the field of penology, according to which effort should be made to bring about correction and reformation of the individual offenders and not to resort to retributive justice. Modern criminal jurisprudence recognizes that no one is a born criminal and that a good many crimes are the product of socio-economic milieu. Although not much can be done for hardened criminals, considerable stress has been laid on bringing about reform of young offenders not guilty of very serious offences and of preventing their association with hardened criminals."

6. Reliance can also be placed upon Isher Das v. State of Pu