Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

36 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

AMIT VASHISTHAversusSURESH AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 83631 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner lodged a complaint under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the respondent, Suresh, assaulted the presiding officer during an adjudication proceeding under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The magistrate convicted

GIRRAJ PRASAD MEENAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2013 INSC 66130 September 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was kidnapped, as alleged in FIR No.115 of 2009 under IPC s.365, and the police investigated, recording statements under s.161 and s.164 CrPC. The charge‑sheet filed later named only two private respondents for offences under IPC s.323, s.343 read with s.34, omitting the kidnapping charge. The two accused

MOHD. HASHIMversusSTATE OF UP & ORS.

2016 INSC 106628 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were convicted under IPC sections 323 and 498‑A and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. They sought release on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The question before the Supreme Court was whether Sect

SUNIL KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2012 INSC 15027 March 2012Dismissed

Sunil Kumar was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for possessing and selling large quantities of blue kerosene and was sentenced to one year imprisonment and a fine. His appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the High Court, and a subsequent application seeking modification of the

SANTOSH SAHADEV KHAJNEKARversusTHE STATE OF GOA

2025 INSC 104126 August 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted under sections 323, 352, 504 of the IPC and section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 for allegedly hitting a child with a school bag. The High Court reduced the sentences, but the appellant challenged the conviction for child abuse and the applicability of probation. The Supreme Court ex

NANAK RAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2014 INSC 14226 February 2014Disposed off

The case arose from a violent clash between two rival groups over a land dispute in Rajasthan, during which Shivji Ram was killed and several others injured. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, while the High Court later reduced the charge to culpable homicide not amountin

SANJABIJ TARIversusKISHORE S. BORCAR & ANR.

2025 INSC 115825 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sanjabij Tari, appealed against the High Court’s ex‑parte order acquitting Kishore S. Borcar (respondent No.1) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a bounced cheque of Rs.7.5 lakh. The central issue was whether the High Court could overturn the concurrent findings of the trial and sess

COMMISSIONER OF POLICEversusRAJ KUMAR

2021 INSC 42325 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Police, Delhi appealed against a Delhi High Court order that directed the consideration of four candidates (Raj Kumar, Shiv Singh, Prem Singh Choudhary and Deepa Tomar) for appointment as constables despite their involvement in criminal cases. The candidates had either been acquitted or had their ca

CHELLAMMAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2025 INSC 54022 April 2025Disposed off

The appellants, a mother‑in‑law and her son‑in‑law, were convicted under Section 498‑A of the IPC for cruelty to a woman and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine. They sought to replace the imprisonment with an enhanced fine, but the court held that fine cannot substitute imprisonment under Section 498‑A. The pr

RAMESH KUMAR @BABLAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2016 INSC 117922 April 2016Case Partly allowed

The case arose from a clash between two groups in 1997 where the appellant, Ramesh Kumar @ Babla, was alleged to have struck the complainant with a sword, causing head injuries. The trial court convicted him under Section 307 of the IPC for attempted murder and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment, a dec

SANJAY COLAROversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 68621 April 2025Disposed off

The appellant, Sanjay Colaro, was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC for causing a fatal road accident by rash driving. He was sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine, which he appealed through the criminal appellate hierarchy up to the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that, given the l

SANJAY DUTT (A-117)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI (STF), BOMBAY

2013 INSC 18221 March 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals arising from the Designated Court's judgments in the 1993 Bombay bomb blast case under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The Court held that confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of TADA are substantive evidence admissible a

NAGARAJversusUNION OF INDIA

2019 INSC 25021 February 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a bus driver for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, collided with a railway level‑crossing gate on 3 August 2006, breaking it. He was convicted under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the appel

SHYAM LAL VERMAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2013 INSC 4521 January 2013Dismissed

The appellant, a retired post‑office employee, was convicted for misappropriating Rs 1,35,240 under Section 477‑A IPC read with Sections 3(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court, instead of imposing a custodial sentence, released him under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on a bo

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusBHUPENDRA YADAV

2023 INSC 83720 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Bhupendra Yadav, applied for a constable post in the Madhya Pradesh police and truthfully disclosed in his verification form that he had been tried for offences under IPC and the POCSO Act, but was acquitted by the trial court. The Superintendent of Police deemed him unfit on the ground of moral turpitu

LAKHVIR SINGH ETCversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2021 INSC 3019 January 2021Disposed off

The appellants, aged 19 and 20, were convicted under Section 397 IPC for grievous hurt and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. While the State argued that the mandatory minimum sentence could not be reduced, the appellants sought release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, citing their

RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusANIL KANWARIYA

2021 INSC 49017 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. appointed Anil Kanwariya as a Technical Helper on probation. The employee concealed a prior conviction under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and filed a false declaration stating no criminal case was pending or any conviction. After police verification revealed the conviction, the em

SUNITA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR

2024 INSC 44817 May 2024Dismissed

The case arose from a POCSO trial in which the Special Judge conducted the proceedings in extreme haste, denying the accused the opportunity to consult counsel, receive documents, and present a defence, and ultimately imposing a death sentence that was set aside by the Patna High Court and a de novo trial ordered. The

NATIONAL CAMPAIGN ON DALIT HUMAN RIGHTS & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2016 INSC 114015 December 2016Disposed off

The National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights and other NGOs filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking enforcement of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and its 1995 Rules, alleging widespread non‑implementation by State and Central authorities. They pleaded for directions

NAGARAJAN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2025 INSC 70314 May 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellants were convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PoFA) for selling adulterated curd and various food items, receiving six months' imprisonment and fines. They sought release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, arguing that Section 20AA of PoFA, which excluded probation,

BIRJUversusSTATE OF M.P.

2014 INSC 9814 February 2014Disposed off

The appellant Birju was convicted for the murder of a one‑year‑old child, shot with a pistol after the child’s grandfather refused to give him money for liquor. The trial court and the High Court sentenced him to death, invoking his extensive criminal record as an aggravating factor. On appeal, the Supreme Court examin

MANOJversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2026 INSC 15213 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for allegedly possessing and diverting government‑quota cement in 1994. The prosecution relied on the Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 and the Cement Control Order, 1967, but the Supreme Court

SATHYANversusSTATE OF KERALA

2023 INSC 70311 August 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Sathyan, was arrested in October 2003 for carrying five litres of arrack in his autorickshaw and was convicted under Section 8 of the Abkari Act based solely on the testimony of two official witnesses, an Excise Inspector and an Assistant Excise Inspector. He challenged the conviction, arguing that the l

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusCHETAN JEFF

2022 INSC 55611 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan recruited constables and the petitioner, Chetan Jeff, applied claiming no criminal antecedents, while a pending FIR under Sections 143, 341 and 336 IPC existed. The recruitment authority rejected his candidature for suppressing this material fact and making a false declaration. The petitioner cha

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSRI CHAND

2015 INSC 39711 May 2015Case Partly allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of Sri Chand, who was charged with attempt to rape a 12‑year‑old girl and outraging her modesty. The trial court convicted him only under IPC s.354 and granted probation, while the High Court upheld that order. The Supreme Court held that the evidence did not prove the atte

SUSHIL KUMAR SINGHALversusTHE REGIONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

2010 INSC 49310 August 2010Dismissed

The appellant, a peon of Punjab National Bank, was convicted under Section 409 IPC for embezzling Rs 5,000 and was dismissed from service. While his criminal appeal upheld the conviction, the appellate court released him on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The bank dismissed him under Section 10(1)

MILIND S/O ASHRUBA DHANVE AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026 INSC 35510 April 2026Disposed off

The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 323 and 324 read with section 34 for assaulting a victim's family and were sentenced only to pay fines of Rs.500 and Rs.2,000 respectively. They appealed, seeking the benefit of sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, arguing that the Act should apply e

CHARANJIT KAURversusBIKRAM SINGH & ANR.

2016 INSC 25710 March 2016Disposed off

Charanjit Kaur filed a criminal complaint under Sections 498A, 406 and 1208 of the IPC alleging dowry harassment and criminal conspiracy by her husband, Bikram Singh. The trial court convicted the husband and sentenced him to one year imprisonment for each offence, with a fine of Rs.1,000. The Sessions Court dismissed

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusVIKRAM DAS

2019 INSC 1618 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Vikram Das, was convicted under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for assaulting a SC/ST woman and was sentenced by the trial court to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500. The High Court, on the respondent's request, c

STATE OF PUNJABversusBALWINDER SINGH AND ORS.

2012 INSC 96 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

In 1992 a bus and a truck, both traveling at high speed, collided on a highway in Punjab, resulting in the deaths of five passengers. The drivers of the bus (Balwinder Singh) and the truck were convicted under IPC sections 304A, 337 and 279 and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment for the 304A charge and six mo

AJAHAR ALIversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013 INSC 6764 October 2013Dismissed

In 1995 Ajahar Ali forcibly grabbed the hair of 16‑year‑old Nasima Begum, kissed her and caused a cut on her lip. He was convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine. The appellant appealed, arguing that the 18‑year delay, his juvenile status at the ti

STATE THROUGH C.B.I., ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, CHANDIGARHversusSANJIV BHALLA & ANR.

2014 INSC 9804 July 2014Dismissed

The State (through CBI) appealed against a High Court order that released three accused—Sanjiv Bhalla, Major Purshotam Singh and R.P. Chopra—on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, after they were convicted of conspiracy to cheat under IPC sections 120‑B and 420. Only the fourth accused

SOM DUTT & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2022 INSC 3854 April 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellants, Som Dutt and others, were convicted by three successive courts for theft under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine. They challenged the High Court's dismissal of their revision petition, seeking release on probation under Section 361

RAJENDRA BHAGATversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

2022 INSC 63 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a serving army Naik, was convicted under Section 498-A IPC for cruelty towards his wife and sentenced to three years' simple imprisonment. After his conviction, the parties entered into a genuine settlement, resumed cohabitation, and the wife was nominated as his service record nominee. The High Court, n

GITA RAM & ANR.versusSTATE OF H.P.

2013 INSC 701 February 2013Dismissed

The appellants were convicted for publicly exhibiting obscene blue films to a young audience under Section 292 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act. The trial court sentenced them to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine; the appellate court reduced the imprisonment

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search