Courts must consider probation for minor offences like voluntarily causing hurt, recording reasons if denied; appellate courts can grant benefit considering delay, offender character, reformatory aim absent antecedents. (32 words)

JUDGMENT :

NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.09.1988 passed by X Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in S.T. No. 185 of 1986 convicting the appellant Baburam under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him one year R.I. and co-appellant Mallah convicted one year R.I. under /34 and also fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine three months R.I.

3. Today, the present Criminal Appeal is listed under the category of oldest pending cases in this High Court for priority basis.

4. As per the office report dated 16.02.2026, appellant No. 1 Babu Ram has been released on bail after furnishing bonds and undertakings and appellant No. 2 Mallah has died 20 years ago and the appeal against appellant no. 2 stood abated on 25/11/2025.

5. From the perusal of records, it transpires that the appellant No. 1 Babu Ram has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC to undergo one year R.I. and also fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine three months R.I.

6. In the case of Subhash Chand & others Vs. State of U.P. (2015 Law Suit (All) 1343) and the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No. 1319 of 1999 (Hargovind & Others vs. State of U.P.) passed by this Court on 11.01.2019.

Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads as follows:

"3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.- When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him 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 so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4 release him after due admonition.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4."

7. Thus, this was the bounden duty of the learned Trial Court and also the appellate court to consider why they did not proceed to grant the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads as follows:

"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 p