Holding

The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 cannot be invoked to grant probation to a convicted anti‑social specialist criminal involved in abduction, seduction and sale of girls.

Summary

The petitioner, Devki alias Kala, was convicted under Sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code for abducting, seducing, and selling a 17‑year‑old girl. The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 366 and set aside the conviction under Section 368, imposing three years of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner sought release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, arguing that the legislation should apply even to serious offenders. The Supreme Court held that extending probation to an "anti‑social specialist criminal" involved in such grave offenses would insult the purpose of the amelioratory law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the special leave petition, rejecting the plea for probation and urging the State Governments to take stricter action against similar crimes.

Issues considered

Whether a person convicted of offences under Sections 366 and 368 IPC for abduction, seduction and sale of a girl can be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 366, s. 368
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

Subjects

Probation of Offenders ActIndian Penal CodeSection 366Section 368abductionseductionsale of girlscriminal lawsentencingspecial leave petitionanti‑social offender

Judgment

91
)

DEVKI ALIAS KALA A

v.
'
THE STATE OF HARYANA
July 24, 1979
•
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] B

Sentencing process-Plea for an order -to release anti-social specialist crimi·
n.11ls on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Act XX of
1

1958) is an insulting stultification of the amelioratory legislation.
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 366 and 368
f>enal Code to three years' rigorous imprisonment on each count for the offences C
,.....1 o"f abduction, seduction and sale of girls to others. In appeal, the High Court
confirmed the said order of conviction under Section 366 l.P .C. but set aside
.the convicticn under Section 368 -ibid.
Dismissing the special lea.ve petition, the Court
I-TELD : It is .an insulting stultification of the amelioratory legislation viz.
"Probation of Offenders Act to extend its considerate provisions to such a:ati-social D
·"Specialist criniinals, as in this case, "''here the petitioner an abominable culprit
with sufficient expertise in the art of abduction seduction and sale of girls,
descended in a taxi cab, kidnapped the1 young woman and \\'hen she cried out
adn1inistered the potion which rendered her unconscious and by a well-laid
·out plan took her from the small town in Bihar to Dhanbad and from there,
via Ddhi to Ha·ryana and lodged her in a house for obvious immoral purpose&.
[82C-EJ E

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for Special Leave
to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1839 of 1979.
Aprea! by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
19-1-1973 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crinlin•! Appeal
No. 329/75. F
J. P. Goyal and S. K. Jain for the Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was deliver~d by

';. KRISHNA IYER, J. Parvati, an unsophisticated girl of 17 was wehd-
ing her way home at about sunset along a public street in the artless G
town of Sitalpur in Bihar when Smt. Devki, the petitioner before us,
with diabolic design, swooped down and snatched her into a taxi-cab
and blized away. The weeping victim was medicated into unconscions-
ness, removed to Dhanbad and further on, to destination Haryana.
Tragically, where tourists abouncj, satellite industries in female flesh
ilourish, unless the State crusades with militant zeal to stamp out this H
terrible vice. Anyway, Parvati, by now enslaved in a village villa.
was offered for marital sale. to affiuent lecherous youths. The damsel
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 1 s.c.R_

A in distress desperately escaped through a half-ajar door and eventnally
l~uded in a police station. The police investigation unravelled the
pathetic story and ended up in a case, conviction, appeal, confirmation •
and, finally, in this special leave petition to this Court which is the
last refuge of every vanquished litigant.
•
6 Confronted by concurrent findings of guilt, counsel for the peti- l._
tioner gave up his attack on the conviction and concentrated his fire
o:i the sentence, which, in this case, was three years' rigorous imprison-
ment. For what ? For abducting a teenage girl and forcing her into-
sexual submission with commercial object, a racket which has become
an enormous national menace, notwithstanding the constitutional con-
c cern for the weaker sex. Counsel dared to urge that the Probation
of Offenders Act should be extended to this abominable culprit who
had shown sufficient expertise in the art of abduction, seduction and
sale of girls to others who offer a tempting price. The features of
this case show that the petitioner suddenly descended in a taxi-cab
and kidnapped the young woman, and when she cried out, administered
D
the potion which rendered her unconscious. Furthermore, a well laid-
out plan is discernible when we see the geographical spread of the
crime. From a small town in Bihar, the girl is despatched to Dhanbad
and from there, via Delhi, to Haryana, lodged in a house where young
men were asked to view her for obvious immoral purposes. It is an
E insulting stultification of the amelioratory legislation viz. Probation of
Offenders Act to extend its considerate provisions to such anti-social,
specialist criminals. All that we can do is to reject the plea with
indignation and follow it up with an appeal to the State Governments
of Bihar and of Haryana to put a special squad on the trail and hound
out every such offender so that the streets of our towns and cities may
be sanitized and safe after sunset for Indian womanhood. Dismissed.

S.R. Petition dismissed.

••