IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-3365-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 16.04.2026 Saravjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Bahadur Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction dated 18.07.2023 and order on quantum of sentence dated 25.07.2023, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in case arising out of FIR No. 159 dated 05.10.2015, registered under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Ambala Sadar, whereby the petitioner and co-accused were held guilty and convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for maximum period of one year with default clause of fine. The petitioner has also laid challenge to the judgment dated 30.10.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby the appeal of the petitioner, challenging his conviction, had been dismissed.

2. At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present revision petition is pending since the last year. The petitioner is facing rigors of litigation from the last more than 11 years. The petitioner has already undergone actual imprisonment for a period of 02 months and 18 days and in the intervening period, he is not involved in any other criminal case. He is leading happy and peaceful life with his family. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he did not press the grounds as taken in the revision petition and restricted his argument to the extent that benefit of probation be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the sole consideration before this Court is as to whether the prayer made by the petitioner for extending benefit of probation can be accepted or not?

3. Before considering the prayer made by the petitioner to release him on probation, let us have a look on the law on this point. The aims and object of the Probation Act came to be decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1972 AIR (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. Modern 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."

4. Reliance can also be placed upon Isher Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1295andArvind 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 j