IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-653-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.03.2026 RAJ KUMAR AND ORS. ….Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Aman Pal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neha Rani, Advocate Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG Haryana.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 23.02.2026, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as 'learned trial Court') in Sessions case CRA No.132 of 2018, titled as ‘Raj Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2018 and the order of sentence dated 17.03.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra was upheld in case arising out of FIR No. 739 dated 15.11.2012, registered under Sections 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

2. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not challenging the sentence and confines his prayer that the revision be considered for extending the benefit of probation to the petitioners considering prolonged trial and no criminal antecedents post conviction in the present FIR.

3. Since the learned counsel is not challenging the impugned judgment 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 learned counsel for the petitioners for extending benefit of probation can be accepted or not?

4. Before proceeding to consider the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners for release of the accused persons 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 dise