Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Thirumoorthy VS State Represented by the Inspector of Police...
Checking relevance for Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti VS State of Karnataka...
Checking relevance for Just Rights For Children Alliance VS S. Harish...
Checking relevance for Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh VS State Of U. P. ...
Checking relevance for State Of Karnataka, Through Bhalki Town Police Station, Bidar District VS Shaik Rouf, S/o. Pasha Miyan...
2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 5 : Probation does not apply in POCSO cases. The court explicitly held that where a statute prescribes a minimum sentence, the Probation of Offenders Act has no application or relevance. This principle was affirmed in the context of Section 4 of the POCSO Act, which mandates a minimum sentence of seven years. Since the statute bars judicial discretion in sentencing, the trial court had no power to impose a lesser sentence or grant probation. The court emphasized that Rule 126-P(2)(ii) of the DI Rules, which sets a minimum sentence, overrides the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, due to its overriding effect under Section 43 of the Defence of India Act, 1962.Checking relevance for State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) vs Pappu...
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) vs Pappu - Delhi (2022)
: Probation can be granted in a POCSO case, but only in specific circumstances. In this case, the trial court granted probation to the convict for offences under Section 363 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, which are punishable with a maximum of five years'''' imprisonment and a fine. The court considered the convict''''s first-time offense, family responsibilities, economic condition, and a recommendation from the Probation Officer. As a result, instead of imprisonment, the convict was released on probation under a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with a surety, supervision by the Probation Officer for one year, and monthly reporting. However, the appellate court later modified the sentence to five years'''' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000, emphasizing that the POCSO Act mandates minimum sentences for serious offenses and that leniency may undermine justice for child victims. This indicates that while probation is legally permissible in POCSO cases under Section 363 of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, it is subject to strict scrutiny and may be overturned if the offense is deemed serious or if the court finds that leniency undermines justice.Checking relevance for Binod Tamang VS State of Sikkim...2022 0 Supreme(Sikk) 75 : Yes, probation can apply in a POCSO case. The court explicitly invoked Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and released the appellant on probation instead of imposing a custodial sentence. The court considered the appellant to be a first offender with no criminal antecedents, the fact that he had three children with the victim, and the potential hardship on innocent dependents if he were incarcerated. The court emphasized that the non obstante clause in Section 4 of the Probation Act allows its provisions to prevail over other laws, including the POCSO Act, and that beneficial provisions of the Act should be interpreted widely. The appellant was directed to enter into a bond with sureties before the Special Judge (POCSO) and remain under supervision for one year, while being required to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.Checking relevance for Prasanta Chaudhuri vs State Of Nagaland...
2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1667 : In a case involving a conviction under Section 352/354D of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 8/9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), the petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO, Tuensang. Despite the conviction, the court applied Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and released the petitioner on probation for a period of 2 years. This demonstrates that probation is applicable in POCSO cases when the court exercises discretion under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.Checking relevance for ...
Checking relevance for Sonu Mansuri, son of Late Samin Mansuri @ Md. Samim vs State of Jharkhand...
Checking relevance for Bindesh Fulchand Netam S/o Shri Fulchand Netam VS State Of Chhattisgarh...
2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 496 : Probation does not apply in POCSO cases involving juveniles who have been transferred to the Children''''s Court (Sessions POCSO Court) under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and subsequently convicted as adults. The court held that once a juvenile aged above 16 who has committed a heinous offence (such as gang rape under Section 376(D) of IPC and Section 17 of POCSO Act) is transferred to the Children''''s Court, the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, including those related to probation, are not applicable. Instead, after attaining 21 years of age, the juvenile is to be transferred to prison to serve the remainder of the sentence, as per Section 20 of the JJ Act, 2015. The court emphasized that the juvenile''''s case is no longer governed by the rehabilitative framework of the JJ Act post-21 years, and thus probation is not a viable option. The petitioner''''s progress reports and positive conduct were considered, but the court ruled that public safety and the nature of the heinous offence outweighed reformative potential, leading to the denial of release or probation and the order for transfer to jail.
