Allahabad High Court

THAKUR PRASAD AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 9 April 2026
Bench: VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL

Holding

The appeal is dismissed and the trial court's order of probation is confirmed.

Summary

The appellants, convicted under IPC sections 147, 323 and 149, were sentenced to six months imprisonment but were released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 with a bond of Rs.10,000. They appealed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, challenging the trial court's order, arguing that the probation order should not affect their future. The State opposed the appeal. The court examined Section 12 of the Probation Act, which removes disqualification for offences dealt with under Sections 3 or 4, and considered Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents interpreting this provision. Finding that the trial court had exercised its discretion appropriately and that six months of probation had already elapsed, the High Court confirmed the trial court's order and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Interpretation and effect of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on disqualification after release on probation.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 374(2)
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — s. 12, 4

Subjects

probation
criminal appeal
disqualification
IPC sections 147, 323, 149
Section 12 Probation Act
Section 374(2) CrPC
court discretion

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4455 of 2002

Thakur Prasad And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pradeep Narain Pandey, Rama Nand
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Govt. Advocate

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for appellants; Sri Jai
Prakash Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State
respondent and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by
appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 25.9.2002 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (F.T.C.) No.2, Basti in
Session Trial No.79 of 1998 (State vs. Thakur Prasad & six others) arising
out of Crime No.274 of 1996, Police Station Kotwali Basti, District Basti
convicting and sentencing the appellants under Sections 147 and 323/149
I.P.C. to undergo six months imprisonment, but in place of imprisonment the
appellants were released probation with a condition to keep good conduct for
period of next six months and further to file personal bond and sureties of
Rs.10,000/-.

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 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and they have
followed the conditions as stipulated in the judgement and order dated
25.9.2002. He submitted that due to order of probation, future of appellants
may not be affected. Hence this appeal.
CRLA No. 4455 of 2002
2

4. Learned AGA opposed the contention made by learned counsel for
appellant.

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 147 and 323/149 IPC by the
Court concerned and maximum lenient view was taken by the trial Court.
Six months 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 25.9.2002 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 10, 2026
Dev
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
DEV PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…