IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-187-SB-2005 (O&M)

Date of decision: 25.02.2026 NEK CHAND AND ANR ….Appellants Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG Punjab.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 10.01.2005, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Barnala (hereinafter referred to as 'learned trial Court') in Session Case No. 9 of 03.11.2004, titled as The State v. Raghbir Singh and others arising out of FIR No. 50 dated 04.05.1990 registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1985 at Police Station Tapa, whereby the appellants were held guilty for commission of aforementioned offence and were sentenced to undergo ₹

maximum rigorous imprisonment for 03 years each and to pay fine of

5,000/- each with default clause.

2. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not challenging the judgment on merits but restricts his prayer to the effect that benefit of probation be granted to the appellants.

3. Since the appellants are not challenging the impugned judgments passed by the Court below on its merit and seeking benefit of probation, the sole consideration before this Court is as to whether the prayer made by the appellants for extending benefit of probation can be accepted or not?

4. Before proceeding to consider the prayer made by the appellants for release of the accused on probation, it is apposite to refer to the legal position on the subject. The aims and objectives of the Probation of Offenders Act were authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 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. Modem 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."

5. Reliance can also be placed upon Isher Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1295 and Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas and others, 1974 AIR (SC) 1818, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken the similar view. Relevant paragraph of Arvind Mohan Sinha's case (supra) reads as under:-

"The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society. A jail term should normally be enough to wipe out the stain of guilt but the sentence which the society passes on convicts is relenless. The ignominy commonly associated with a jail term and the social stigma which attached to convicts often render the remedy worse than the disease and the year purposes of punishment stands in the danger of being frustrated. In recalcitrant cases punishment has to be deterrent so that others similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of cri