HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Pravesh Singh .....Appellant(s)

Versus State of U.P.

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Alkesh Singh, K.S.Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : A G A, Jahar Singh (Kashyap)

Court No. - 76 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Sri Alkesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri 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 29.1.1988 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 1987 (State vs. Pravesh Singh) convicting the accused/appellant under section 429 I.P.C. and sentencing to undergo R.I. of six months.

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 20.01.2026, notice has been served upon the appellant Pravesh Singh.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not inclined to argue the case on merits and seeks the benefit of probation as the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 429 IPC for maximum sentence of six months R.I.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment 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 i9*s 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 such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is like