Allahabad High Court
CHANDRA PRAKASH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL
Holding
The trial court’s order granting probation and confirming the conviction stands; the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appellants Chandra Prakash and others appealed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against a judgment that convicted them under IPC Sections 323/34 and 325/34 and released them on probation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, with sureties. The appellants argued that the probation order removed any disqualification arising from the conviction. The State opposed, relying on Section 12 of the Probation Act and precedent. The Court examined the interpretation of Section 12, citing Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions, and held that the trial court’s exercise of discretion in granting probation was proper. Since the two‑year probation period had already elapsed, the Court found no merit in disturbing the order and dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court’s judgment.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 removes the disqualification attached to a conviction for a person released on probation.
- Whether the appellate court can set aside the trial court’s probation order after the probation period has elapsed.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 374(2)
- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — s. 12
Subjects
- Probation
- Disqualification
- Criminal Appeal
- IPC Sections 323
- IPC Sections 325
- CrPC Section 374(2)
- Probation of Offenders Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3379 of 2004
Chandra Prakash And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : S.K. Chaturvedi, Shashwat Kishore
Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Govt. Advocate, Ram Pravesh Yadav
Court No. - 93
HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Shashwat Kishore Chaturvedi, learned counsel for appellants; Sri Rahul
Asthana, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent and
perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party, even in the revised
call.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellant
challenging the judgment and order dated 27.5.2004 passed by learned Additional
Session Judge, F.T.C. No.2, Basti in Session Trial No.290 of 2002 (State vs. Chandra
Prakash & others) arising out of Case Crime No.262 of 2001, Police Station Bakhira,
District Sant Kabir Nagar convicting and sentencing the appellants under Sections
323/34 I.P.C. to undergo one year imprisonment and under Section 325/34 to undergo
Two years simple imprisonment, but in place of imprisonment the appellants were
released on probation with a condition to keep good character for period of next two
years and further to deposit two sureties of Rs.10,000/- and personal bond of the same
amount.
3. Learned counsel for appellants have made no argument on the point of conviction
and submitted that appellants have been released on probation under Section 5 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and they have followed the conditions as stipulated
in the judgement and order dated 27.5.2004. He submitted that due to order of
probation, future of appellants may not be affected. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned AGA opposed the contention made by learned counsel for appellant.
CRLA No. 3379 of 2004
2
5. The prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution story in their
statements given before the trial Court.
6. In this context Section 12 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is reproduced:-
"12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.--
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found
guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or
section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction
of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall
apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently
sentenced for the original offence."
7. Interpretation of Section 12 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 will depend
upon observation given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Divisional
Personnel Officer, Southern Railway & another vs. T.R.Challapan, AIR 1975 SC
2216 and by Delhi High Court in the case of Iqbal Singh vs. Inspector General of
Police and others, AIR 1970 Delhi, 240.
8. Appellants were convicted under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 I.P.C. by the Court
concerned and maximum lenient view was taken by the trial Court. Two years of
probation have elapsed from the date of judgment. No fruitful purpose would serve in
keeping this appeal pending. The view taken by the trial Court is plausible view. No
interference is called for. The judgement and order dated 27.5.2024 passed by the trial
Court is hereby confirmed. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
9. Office is directed to transmit copy of this order alongwith record of trial Court to
the trial Court.
April 30, 2026
Dev
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DEV PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…