Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 442

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
Moti And Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1006 of 1985
Decided On : 20-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : R.K. Rathore, Ravindra Singh
For the Respondents: A.G.A.

Appellate courts must extend probation under POA Section 4 to eligible elderly offenders in old minor offence cases despite trial court lapses, mandating reasons under CrPC Section 361 if denied, prioritizing reform over punishment.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 324/34 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Sections 3 & 4 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 360 & 361 - Conviction under Sections 324/34 IPC with sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment - Offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years eligible for release after admonition or on probation if no previous conviction proved - Trial court failed to consider probation benefit or record special reasons under Section 361 CrPC for denial - Appellate court may extend probation notwithstanding trial court omission - Considering appellant's advanced age of 71 years, incident dating back to 1982, prolonged proceedings spanning over 40 years, absence of criminal antecedents, and non-serious nature of offence, conviction upheld but appellant released on probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act on executing personal bond with sureties for one year good behaviour, breach attracting custody to undergo original sentence. (Paras 2,5-11,20-23)

(B) Sentencing - Reformatory object - Criminal law aims to reform offender rather than punish - Courts duty-bound to consider age, character, antecedents, circumstances, nature of offence before sentencing - Mandatory activist approach to gather relevant materials despite counsel lapses - Probation provisions require strict compliance with monthly monitoring by district judges. (Paras 9,11,12,13)

Facts of the case:
Criminal appeal against sessions court judgment convicting appellants under Sections 324/34 IPC and sentencing to one year rigorous imprisonment. Appeal of one appellant abated. Surviving appellant aged 71 years faced prolonged proceedings from 1982 incident with no criminal antecedents recorded.

Findings of Court:
Conviction maintained. Appellant released on probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act upon filing bonds and sureties within one month; certified copy and records to be sent to trial court.

Issues: Obligation of trial and appellate courts to consider and apply probation provisions; failure to record special reasons under Section 361 CrPC; desirability of imprisonment after long delay for eligible offender.

Ratio Decidendi: Probation statutes mandate courts to release suitable first-time offenders of minor offences on admonition or probation, recording reasons if denied; appellate courts empowered to grant benefit considering reformatory goals, offender's age, character, and case circumstances overriding undue imprisonment post long delays.

Result: Appeal partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. appeal against conviction under ipc 324/34; partial abatement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. probation act sec 3 permits admonition for minor offences. (Para 6 , 7)
3. crpc 360/361 mandates probation consideration and reasons. (Para 8)
4. reformatory sentencing prioritizes probation in suitable cases. (Para 9)
5. trial court must record reasons for denying probation. (Para 10)
6. precedents emphasize probation for minor offences, age, delay. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
7. probation granted considering age, long delay, no antecedents. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, holding brief of Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

2. This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.03.1985 passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 424 of 1983 convicting the appellants under Section 324/34 IPC and sentencing them to 1 year 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. The appeal against the appellant No. 1 Moti is already abated on 08.12.2025.

5. From the perusal of records, it transpires that the appellant No. 2 Naththu, presently aged about 71 years has been convicted for the offences under Section 324/34 IPC sentenced to one year's 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 peace and be of good behaviour:

Provided that the court shall not direct suc