Allahabad High Court

DORI AND OTHERSversusSTATE

Decided: 18 February 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

The conviction is upheld, but the appellants are granted probation under Section 4 of the Probation Offenders Act, 1958.

Summary

The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 147, 323 and 149 and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment each, to run concurrently. They appealed solely on the sentence, arguing that as first‑time offenders the trial court should have considered the Probation Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 of the CrPC, and that failure to do so without giving reasons violated Section 361 of the CrPC. The High Court upheld the conviction but held that the trial court was obliged to consider the beneficial provisions and, in the interests of justice, granted the appellants probation under Section 4 of the Probation Offenders Act. The appellants were released on probation upon furnishing personal bonds of Rs.20,000 each for one year, with a warning that breach would revive the original sentence. The appeal was dismissed with the conviction affirmed and probation ordered.

Issues considered

The trial court’s failure to invoke Section 360 CrPC or the Probation Offenders Act, 1958, and the requirement to give reasons under Section 361 CrPC.
Whether first‑time offenders convicted under IPC 147, 323 and 149 are eligible for probation under Section 3 or 4 of the Probation Offenders Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 360, 361
Probation Offenders Act, 1958 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

probation
sentencing
first-time offender
IPC 147
IPC 323
IPC 149
Section 360 CrPC
Section 361 CrPC
Probation Offenders Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 520 of 1985

Dori And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Keshav Sahai, Munesh Kumar, Sachin
Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.

Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard Sri Sachin Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant nos. 2
& 3, namely, Sheoraj and Bhoopal and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 13.2.1985, passed by Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Budaun, in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1984, cross case of S.T. No. 162 of
1983 convicting the said appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
six months under Section 147 IPC and also to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months under Sections 323/149 IPC. Both the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the accused-
appellants have not been convicted previously for any offence and they are
the first time offender. He at the outset submits that he is not challenging the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and he is confining his
submission in the criminal appeal only with respect to the order of sentence.

4. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the
accused-appellants, the criminal appeal is dismissed so far as it relates to the
impugned judgment and order of conviction, passed by the learned trial
court. The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned
trial court is hereby, upheld.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submits that in view of
the aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the fact that the accused-
appellants have not been convicted previously for any offence, the trial court
ought to have invoked the provisions of the Probation Offenders Act, 1958
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity).

6. The trial court did neither invoke the provisions of the aforesaid Act nor
the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C., while sentencing the accused-
appellants.The trial court has not given any special reason in the impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence for not giving the benefit of
CRLA No. 520 of 1985
2

provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C., or the provisions of the Act, 1958.

7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that to that extent, the
impugned judgment and order suffers from serious illegality being violative
of provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it cannot be sustained.

8. Section 361 of the Code is required to be applied with or without the
beneficial provisions i.e. Section 360 of the Code or provisions of the Act,
1958. If the Court chooses not to apply either of these provisions, it is
required to give special reasons for not applying the beneficial provision in
case the accused offender otherwise, is eligible for provisions of Section 360
of the Code or Section 3 or 4 of the Act.

9. The accused-appellants have statutory right for claiming the benefit of
beneficial legislation i.e. the provisions of the Act and the learned trial court
was under a duty to consider the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C or
Sections 3 or 4 of the Act as mandated under Section 361 Cr.P.C. If the
provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C or provisions of the Act were not applied,
then the learned trial court should have recorded reasons for the same.

10. Learned AGA, appearing for the State does not dispute the fact that the
accused-appellants are the first time offender and were not previously
convicted in any other case. He further submits that in view of the express
provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C, considering the facts and circumstances,
nature of the offence, the character of the accused-appellants and
particularly, the time period which has lapsed since the date of incident, the
benefit of Section 4 of the Act can be granted in this case.

11. In view of the above facts and circumstances mentioned and considering
the scope of Section 4 of the Act, this criminal appeal is, accordingly
dismissed by upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants. However,
they are granted benefit of Section 4 of the Act. The accused-appellants are
released on probation. The accused-appellant nos. 2 & 3, namely, Sheoraj
and Bhoopal shall file personal bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ each and they
shall keep peace in the society and shall not commit any such offence in
future. The bond shall be for one year.

12. In case of breach of any such condition, the accused-appellants will
subject himself to undergo the sentences before the trial court as per law.
The accused-appellants shall file the bond within a period of one month from
today.

13. Let a copy of this judgment as well as the record be transmitted to the
concerned trial court forthwith for necessary compliance.

February 19, 2026
M. Tarik
(Abdul Shahid,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…