RAVINDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2929 of 1986

Ravindra Kumar
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P.
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : R.P.Singh, Sharad Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : A.G.A.

Court No. - 78
                 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant,
Mr. Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

2. This appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 21.10.1986 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Special Nalayadesh Awasheak Vastuen Adhiniyam, Kanpur Dehat, Kanpur
in Case No. 14 of 1984 (State v. Rabendra Kumar) convicting and
sentencing the appellant to undergo three years R.I. under Section 3/7 of the
Essential Commodities Act.

3. Today, the present Criminal Appeal is listed under the category of
oldest pending cases in this High Court for priority basis.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not inclined to
argue the case on merits and seeks the benefit of probation as the appellant
has been convicted for the offence under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 for maximum sentence of three years R.I.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in the case
of Subhash Chand & others Vs. State of U.P. (2015 Law Suit (All) 1343)
and the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No. 1319 of 1999
(Hargovind & Others vs. State of U.P.) passed by this Court on
11.01.2019.

Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads as follows:
                                                                  CRLA No. 2929 of 1986
                                     2


"3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.- When any person is
found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section
380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of
1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or
with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law, and no
previous conviction is proved against him and the court by which the person i9*s
found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case
including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so
to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force, the court may instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on
probation of good conduct under section 4 release him after due admonition.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person
shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4."

6. Thus, this was the bounden duty of the learned Trial Court and also the
appellate court to consider why they did not proceed to grant the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act.

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads as follows:

"4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.-(1)
When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of
opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of
the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on
probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any
punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without
sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not
exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace
and be of good behaviour:

Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is
satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular
occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the
offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.
                                                                CRLA No. 2929 of 1986
                                    3


(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into
consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the
case.

(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that
in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition
pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the
supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being
less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order,
impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.

(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the
offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to
observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with
respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may,
having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a
repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.

(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the
offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of
the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation
officer concerned."

7. These statutory provisions very emphatically lay down the reformatory
and correctional object of sentencing and obligates the trial court as well as
appellate courts to give benefit of probation in fit cases as provided under
law. Unfortunately, this branch of law has not been much utilized by the trial
courts. It becomes more relevant and important in our system of
administration of justice where trial is often concluded after a long time and
by the time decision assumes finality, the very purpose of sentencing looses
its efficacy as with the passage of time the penological and social priorities
change and there remains no need to inflict punishment of imprisonment,
particularly when the appellant is at advance age and there is no criminal
antecedent of the accused person. The facts and given circumstances in each
case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and
committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the
accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances
are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. It is,
                                                                  CRLA No. 2929 of 1986
                                     4


therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to
the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or
committed.

8. That Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratan Lal vs State of Punjab, AIR 1965
SC 444, while discussing the purpose and object of Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958, has observed in para No. 4, as follows:

"4. The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the
field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of
criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly
stated the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age,
and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of
offenders who are above the age of 21 years, absolute discretion is given to the court
to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the
condition laid down in the appropriate provision of the Act, in the case of offenders
below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to
imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case,
including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not
desirable to deal with them under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act." 9. That it is also noteworthy
that this Hon'ble Court in the case of Subhash Chand vs State of U.P; [2015 Law Suit
(All) 1343, has emphatically laid down the need to apply the law of probation and
give benefit of the beneficial legislation to accused persons in appropriate cases. This
court issued following directions to all trial courts and appellate courts:

"It appears that the aforesaid beneficial legislation has been lost sight of and even the
Judges have practically forgotten this provision of law. Thus, before parting with the
case, this Court feels that I will be failing in discharge of my duties, if a word of
caution is not written for the trial courts and the appellate courts. The Registrar
General of this Court is directed to circulate copy of this Judgment to all the District
Judges of U.P., who shall in turn ensure circulation of the copy of this order amongst
all the judicial officers working under him and shall ensure strict compliance of this
Judgment. The District Judges in the State are also directed to call for reports every
months from all the courts, i.e. trial courts and appellate courts dealing with such
matters and to state as to in how many cases the benefit of the aforesaid provisions
have been granted to the accused. The District Judges are also directed to monitor
                                                                 CRLA No. 2929 of 1986
                                    5


such cases personally in each monthly meeting. The District Judges concerned shall
send monthly statement to the Registrar General as to in how many cases the trial
court/appellate court has granted the benefit of the aforesaid beneficial legislation to
the accused. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General for
immediate compliance."10. That coming to the point of desirability of extending the
benefit of Probation Act to the accused/ appellants in Sitaram Paswan and Anr v.
State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 3534, Supreme Court held as under:-

"For exercising the power which is discretionary, the Court has to consider
circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the character of the offender.
While considering the nature of the offence, the Court must take a realistic view of the
gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim. The benefit
available to the accused under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is subject
to the limitation embodied in the provisions and the word "may" clearly indicates that
the discretion vests with the Court whether to release the offender in exercise of the
powers under Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, having regard to the
nature of the offence and the character of the offender and overall circumstances of
the case. The powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act vest with the
Court when any person is found guilty of the offence committed, not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. This power can be exercised by the Courts while
finding the person guilty and if the Court thinks that having regard to the
circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the
offender, benefit should be extended to the accused, the power can be exercised by the
Court even at the appellate or revisional stage and also by this Court while hearing
appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India."

9. That it is also noteworthy that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd.
Hashim v. State of U.P and Ors., AIR 2017 SC page 660, was pleased to
observe as under:

"20-.........In Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 444. Subba Rao,
J., speaking for the majority, opined thus:-

"The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the
field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of
criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly
stated, the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age,
and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or
                                                                CRLA No. 2929 of 1986
                                    6


imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of
offenders who are above the age of 21 years absolute discretion is given to the court
to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the
conditions laid down in the appropriate provisions of the Act, in the case of offenders
below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to
imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case;
including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not
desirable to deal with them under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act."13. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan 2025 INSC 46 had released the appellant who
was at his advance age, by extending the benefit of probation under the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958.".

10. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarak Nath Keshari v. State of
West Bengal; Criminal Appeal No. 1444 of 2023 while releasing the
appellant on probation convicted under Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, has observed that "Even if there is minimum sentence provided
in Section 7 of the EC Act, in our opinion, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of
probation, the EC Act, being of the year 1955 and the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 being later. Even if minimum sentence is provided in the EC Act, 1955 the same
will not be a hurdle for invoking the applicability of provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958."

11. That it is noteworthy that the incident took place way back in the year
1984. The accused-appellant has suffered prolonged criminal proceeding and
learned A.G.A. could not indicate any criminal antecedent of the appellant
during these years.

12. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that
the benefit of provision of the Act of 1958 should be extended to the
accused/appellant as he has been convicted only under Sections 3/7 of
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 with the maximum sentence of two years
R.I.

13. Hence, while maintaining the conviction, it is directed that, appellant
Ravindra Kumar be released giving the benefit of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act. Consequently, the appellant shall file two
sureties with personal bonds before District Probation Officer concerned and
also an undertaking to keep peace and good behaviour for the period of three
                                                                                               CRLA No. 2929 of 1986
                                                                     7


                                    years from the date of filing of bail bonds.

                                    14. If there is breach of any of the conditions, the appellant will be taken into
                                    custody and will have to undergo sentence awarded to him. The bonds and
                                    sureties aforesaid be filed by the appellant within two months from the date
                                    of the Judgment as per law and Rules.

                                    15. With the above modification, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

                                    167. Office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment along with
                                    Trial Court record to the court concerned for information and necessary
                                    action.



                                                                                        (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
                                    April 27, 2026
                                    Aditya Tripathi




Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad