Holding

The Supreme Court held that the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is available to offenders sentenced solely to a fine, and that "release" under the provision includes release from the obligation to pay the fine.

Summary

The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 323 and 324 read with section 34 for assaulting a victim's family and were sentenced only to pay fines of Rs.500 and Rs.2,000 respectively. They appealed, seeking the benefit of sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, arguing that the Act should apply even when the punishment consists solely of a fine. The Supreme Court examined the purposive interpretation of the 1958 Act, the definition of "punishment" under IPC section 53 and BNS section 4, and held that "fine" falls within the scope of punishments contemplated by the Act. It further clarified that the term "release" in section 4 includes release from the obligation to pay a fine, not just release from custody. Consequently, the Court granted the benefit of section 4 to the three appellants sentenced to fine and the benefit of section 3 to the fourth appellant, ordered them to be released on bond with supervision, and held that they would not face any service disqualification under section 12.

Issues considered

Whether the benefit of sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to offenders sentenced only to a fine.
Whether the expression "release" in section 4 of the 1958 Act includes release from the obligation to pay a fine.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 4
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023s. 4
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 360
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 53
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958s. 12, s. 3, s. 4, s. 6

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of ss.3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and if so, to what extent; whether the benefit of s.4 of the 1958 Act is available to an offender who has been sentenced only with payment of fine, and not imprisonment. Headnotes† Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – ss.3, 4 – Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition or on probation of good conduct – Penal Code, 1860 – s.53 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – s.4 – Benefit of

Subjects

Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958Release offenders after admonitionRelease offenders on probation of good conductRemoval of disqualification attaching to convictionOffender sentenced only with payment of fineBenefit of Section 4 of 1958 ActInterpretation of "release"Punishment under IPCSection 53 of IPCSection 4 of BNSSection 360 CrPCBeneficial legislationPurposive interpretationReformative approach

Judgment

[2026] 4 S.C.R. 565 : 2026 INSC 355

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors.
v.
The State of Maharashtra
(Criminal Appeal No. 1893 of 2026)
10 April 2026
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of ss.3 and 4
of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and if so, to what extent;
whether the benefit of s.4 of the 1958 Act is available to an offender
who has been sentenced only with payment of fine, and not to
any term of imprisonment.

Headnotes†
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – ss.3, 4 – Power of court to
release certain offenders after admonition or on probation of
good conduct – Penal Code, 1860 – s.53 – Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – s.4 – Benefit of ss.3 and 4, 1958 Act –
Entitlement to – Appellants were convicted u/ss.323 and 324
r/w s.34, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of only Rs.500/- and
Rs.2000/- – If entitled to the benefit of ss.3 and 4 – Respondent-
State objected to extending the benefit contending that the
expression used ‘release of the offender’ in s.4 has some
significance and since, the Appellants were not sentenced
of imprisonment but were fined, therefore, passing an order
of release in this case is not possible:
Held: For an offender, the punishments may include the death,
imprisonment for life, imprisonment, forfeiture of property, fine and
community service in terms of the recent addition in BNS – Since
ss.3 and 4 govern acts committed by an offender in relation to
the specific punishments prescribed under the IPC, BNS and any
other law, these provisions must naturally extend to sentences
including fine – Therefore, any reference to ‘punishment’ in 1958
Act has to be construed as per enumeration contained in s.53
of IPC and s.4 of BNS and should undoubtedly include ‘fine’ as
well – Plea of the State that s.4 of 1958 Act is inapplicable in case

* Author
566 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

sentence consist solely of a fine, is devoid of merit – Benefit of
s.4 is available to an offender who has been sentenced only to
payment of fine – Furthermore, the expression ‘release’ used in
s.4 cannot mean release only from custody – It has to be read
as releasing from the obligation to serve sentence of payment of
fine – Therefore, ‘release’ as contained in s.4 of 1958 Act should
be read as to set the offender at liberty from receiving sentence,
even of fine only – Appellants were convicted u/s.323 and 324
of IPC and the allegations as proved relate to assault upon the
persons belonging to same locality – They were sentenced to pay
a fine of only Rs. 500/- u/s.323 and Rs. 2000/- u/s.324 of IPC,
no imprisonment was awarded – There is no subsequent or prior
involvement of the Appellants in commission of any offence, only
present criminal case has been registered against them – They
are employed with State Government – Appellants have not
committed an offence involving moral turpitude – Benefit of s.3
and s.4 extended to the Appellants – Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – s.360. [Paras 24-26, 40-43]

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – ss.3, 4, 12 – Power of court
to release certain offenders after admonition – Power of court
to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct –
Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction:
Held: Once the benefit either u/s.3 or s. 4 has been granted to an
offender, it would entail the benefit of removal of disqualification,
if any, attaching to the conviction – Thus, in case a person has
been released after admonition u/s.3 or on probation of good
conduct u/s.4, they shall not face a disqualification attaching to
such conviction – In the present case, since all the Appellants have
been extended the benefit u/ss.3 and 4, they shall not incur any
disqualification affecting their service career, if any, arising out of
the conviction, in terms of s.12. [Paras 18, 19]

Interpretation of Statutes – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 –
A beneficial legislation, to be interpreted in a purposive manner:
Held: 1958 Act is a beneficial legislation, therefore, keeping the
legislative intent in mind, its provisions ought to be interpreted in
a purposive manner – If two or more views are possible vis-à-vis
interpretation of a beneficial legislation, it must be interpreted in
favour of beneficiaries – Object and purpose of the 1958 Act,
discussed. [Paras 11, 13]
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 567

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – ss.3, 4 – Power of court to
release certain offenders after admonition or on probation of
good conduct – Relevant factors to be taken into consideration
while passing orders u/ss.3 and 4. [Paras 36, 39]
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – ss.3, 4 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – s.360 – Power of court to release certain
offenders after admonition – Power of court to release certain
offenders on probation of good conduct – Order to release
on probation of good conduct or after admonition – Different
framework of s.360, CrPC vis-à-vis ss.3,4, 1958 Act as regards
the scope and structure, discussed. [Paras 28, 29, 33]
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – ss.3, 4 – Benefit of, when
available to an offender, stated. [Paras 14-19]
Words and Phrases – Expression ‘release’ in s.4, Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 – Meaning. [Para 26]

Case Law Cited
Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab [1964] 7 SCR 676 : 1964 SCC
OnLine SC 40; Ved Prakash v. State of Haryana [1981] 1 SCR
1279 : (1981) 1 SCC 447; Mohd. Hasim v. State of Uttar Pradesh
[2016] 9 SCR 953 : (2017) 2 SCC 198; Bharat Singh v. New Delhi
Tuberculosis Centre [1986] 2 SCR 169 : (1986) 2 SCC 614; Kerala
Fishermen’s Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy Food [1995] 3 SCR
785 : (1995) 4 SCC 341; Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar [2008] 7 SCR 673 : (2008) 9 SCC 527; Bombay Anand
Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corpn. [2009] 13 SCR 1139 : (2009)
9 SCC 61; Sanjay Dutt (A-117) v. State of Maharashtra [2013]
16 SCR 368 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 252; Lakhanlal v. State of
M.P. (2021) 6 SCC 100; State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh
Kuldip Singh Anand (2004) 7 SCC 659; Dalbir Singh v. State of
Haryana [2000] 3 SCR 1000 : (2000) 5 SCC 82 – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
Advanced Law Lexicon – referred to.

List of Acts
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Penal Code, 1860; Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
568 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

List of Keywords
Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Sections 12 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958; Release offenders after admonition; Release
offenders on probation of good conduct; Removal of disqualification
attaching to conviction; Released after admonition; Released on
probation of good conduct Offender sentenced only with payment
of fine; Offenders sentenced with ‘fine only’; Offender sentenced to
pay fine; No imprisonment awarded; Benefit of Section 4 of 1958
Act; Offender sentenced only to payment of fine; Only payment of
fine; Offender not sentenced to any term of imprisonment; ‘release’;
‘punishment’; ‘fine’; Section 53 of IPC; Section 4 of BNS; Section
360, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Beneficial legislation;
Purposive interpretation; Reformative approach.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
1893 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRLA No. 506 of 2023.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Amol B. Karande, Vishal Jogdand, Ashutosh Srivastava,
Ms. Akshada, B. Lakshmi Pallesh, Rajiv Agnihotri.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Shrirang B. Varma, Vinayak Aren, Jatin Dhamija, Ms.
Aiswharya Nigam.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. Present appeal is against the final judgment and order dated
26.02.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 569

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

Aurangabad (hereinafter, ‘High Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 506
of 2023. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence for the
charge of Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter, ‘IPC’), as determined by the Special Judge
(POCSO), Beed. The Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court,
imposed sentences, whereby Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter,
‘A-1, A-2 and A-3’ respectively) were each directed to pay a fine
of Rs. 500/- under Section 323, with default stipulation of 15 days’
simple imprisonment; and a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 324,
with default stipulation of one-month simple imprisonment, both
read with Section 34 of IPC. Appellant No. 4 (hereinafter, ‘A-4’)
was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 323 read
with Section 34 of IPC, with a default stipulation of 15 days’ simple
imprisonment. The present appeal has been preferred assailing the
aforesaid findings.

FACTS IN BRIEF
3. It is the case of prosecution that the victim, a 17-year-old girl, was
at her home during Diwali vacation. On 02.11.2019, at around
8.30 A.M. while she was standing outside her house, the accused
persons approached her. A-1 grabbed her hand, pressurized her for
relationship and gave proposal of marriage since her father wasn’t
agreeing. Upon which she screamed and her grandmother as well as
sister came out and confronted the Appellants. At that moment, A-2
assaulted the sister, and A-3 pushed the grandmother. Thereafter,
the victim informed about the incident to her father at his nearby
garage. At about 9:30 A.M, all five accused (including one accused
who was acquitted by the Trial Court) arrived in a white Sumo vehicle
and attacked the father of the victim. A-2 struck on the head by
iron tambi, A-1 hit on leg with an iron rod, A-3 beat with a wooden
stick, A-4 assaulted with fists and kicks, while co-accused Dayabai
instigated them. During the incident, ₹2,000 fell from the father’s
pocket. Bystanders rescued him and took the family to the police
station. The injured father was referred to a Government Hospital.
An FIR of the incident was registered on 02.11.2019 as Crime No.
190/2019 under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 354-A, 504,
506 of IPC and sections 8 and 12 of POCSO, 2012. Learned Trial
Court acquitted accused Dayabai for all the charges while other
accused persons, who are Appellants before us, were acquitted for
all the charges except as specified in paragraph (2) above. Upon
570 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

filing appeal, the High Court vide the impugned order dismissed the
same, hence, the present appeal.
4. In this Criminal Appeal, notice was issued vide order dated
17.05.2024, however, when it was listed on 11.12.2024, learned
counsel for the Appellants submitted that they do not wish to press
the appeal on merits and urged to consider benefit of Sections 3
and 4 read with Sections 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
(hereinafter, ‘1958 Act’).

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
5. Mr. Amol B. Karande, learned counsel for the Appellants, has
contended that present is a fit case to grant benefit of Sections 3
and 4 read with Section 12 of 1958 Act. In support, reliance was
placed on Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab1, submitting that 1958
Act recognizes the reformative theory of punishment and object
of the penal law is more to reform the individual offender than to
punish. It has also been said that it is the duty of the sentencing
court to be activist enough to collect such facts bearing in mind the
rehabilitative approach, as has been observed in Ved Prakash v.
State of Haryana2.
6. In reference to the fact and looking at the nature of offences, i.e.,
voluntarily causing hurt and voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous
weapons, it is contended that the Appellants may be released after
admonition or on probation of good conduct. Placing reliance upon
the decision of this Court in Mohd. Hasim v. State of Uttar Pradesh3,
it has been argued that Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act vests
discretionary power on Court to release a convict on probation of
good conduct on bond with or without sureties, even at the appellate
or revisional stage. It is further argued that the word ‘expedient’ used
in Sections 3 and 4 ought to be construed in its widest amplitude
to mean what is apt, suitable, and appropriate to the end in view.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, releasing the
Appellants on a bond of good conduct would be entirely consistent
with the letter and the spirit of the enactment. As such Appellants

1 1964 SCC OnLine SC 40
2 (1981) 1 SCC 447
3 (2017) 2 SCC 198
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 571

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

may be released after admonition or on probation on bond with or
without sureties as may be deemed fit.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that
the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, as confirmed
up to the High Court vide impugned judgment does not warrant
interference. The benefit of the 1958 Act is being sought mainly on
the ground that it may cause prejudice in employment to A-1 and A-4
who are in government service, rather than on any genuine merits
warranting probation.
8. It has further been contended with respect to applicability of Section
3 that the A-4, who has been sentenced under Section 323 IPC only
may be benefitted. A-1, A-2 and A-3, who stand convicted under
Section 324 IPC fall outside the scope of benefit under Section 3,
as claimed. It has been vehemently argued that the true import and
object of Section 4 is to spare an offender from incarceration and
shield them from the deleterious effects of jail life, postponing the
receiving of sentence for a period not exceeding three years; unlike
Section 3, which expunges the imprisonment itself. Since A-1, A-2
and A-3 have been sentenced only for payment of fine and not to
any term of imprisonment, the very premise underlying Section 4
is absent in this case. Therefore, it has been urged, the prayer for
probation qua A-1, A-2 and A-3 is wholly unjustified and liable to be
rejected at threshold.

ANALYSIS
9. In light of the arguments advanced and, in the facts of the present
case, issues that fall for our consideration are - (i) Whether the
Appellants are entitled to the benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958
Act, and if so, to what extent?; (ii) Whether the benefit of Section 4
of the 1958 Act is available to an offender who has been sentenced
only with payment of fine, and not to any term of imprisonment?
10. Since the Appellants have pressed this appeal limited to the grant of
benefit under the 1958 Act, therefore, to understand the intent of the
provisions of the said Act and the extent to which it may be allowed
to an offender who requires to be punished, including by way of fine
only, both the issues are dealt with simultaneously and in reference
to the provisions of the 1958 Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter, ‘CrPC’), the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
572 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

2023 (hereinafter, ‘BNSS’), the IPC and the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (hereinafter, ‘BNS’).
11. At the outset, it is required to be noted that 1958 Act is a beneficial
legislation, therefore, keeping the legislative intent in mind, its
provisions ought to be interpreted in a purposive manner. It is trite
law that if two or more views are possible vis-a-vis interpretation of a
beneficial legislation, it must be interpreted in favour of beneficiaries.4
The objects clause of the 1958 Act declares the act to provide for
the release of offenders on probation or after due admonition and
the matters connected therewith. While introducing the Probation
of Offenders Bill, 1957 to the Lok Sabha on 14.11.1957, the then
Minister of State for Home Affairs remarked as follows –
“On a number of occasions, the Inspector-General of
Prisons in the various States have met. From 1925 onwards
there were a number of meetings and the Inspectors-
General who are in close touch with the life of the convict
behind the prison bars found that oftentimes the particular
rigour to which the convict has been subjected or the life
that he leads there produces certain results other than
those expected. The expected result would be that the
man must reform himself, and that after he comes out
of the jail, he ought to lead a reformed life, he ought to
return to the proper or social life to which every citizen
has to confine himself. But oftentimes on account of
the long period behind the prison bars, the man does
not improve; on the other hand, he shows certain sign
of deterioration or worse results. That was the reason
why it was considered necessary that the question of
prison reform or the question of the reform of the convict
or the prisoner ought to be considered not only from the
point of view of the administration as such, not only from
the point of view of its having a deterrent effect upon him,
but also from the point of view of improving this particular
man, namely the convict.

4 See, Bharat Singh v. New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, (1986) 2 SCC 614; Kerala Fishermen’s Welfare
Fund Board v. Fancy Food, (1995) 4 SCC 341; Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9
SCC 527; Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corpn., (2009) 9 SCC 61
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 573

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

The principle that is followed in this connection is
that a man becomes a criminal on account of certain
circumstances or on account of certain tendencies,
which are anti-social and which are criminal, so far
as he is concerned. So the way to reform him and
to bring him back to human standards is to find out
certain items of reform by means of which he would
become a good man, and after some time, he would
become a better man.
These are two standards that we have taken into account.”
12. After introduction in the Lok Sabha, it was referred to the Joint
Committee on 18.11.1957. Similarly, Rajya Sabha also agreed to
said reference to the Joint Committee on 26.11.1957. The Joint
Committee prepared its report on 19.2.1958 and the bill was again
discussed in the Lok Sabha on 26.04.1958. In the opening statement,
the then Dy. Minister of Home Affairs reflected upon the objectives
of the act in following words –
“…..Therefore we feel that if we have such good human
material inside the prison, we should give this human
material every opportunity to rehabilitate itself in
society without the stigma of conviction and prison
term……..
……To avoid this stigma, we want to try out this most
progressive measure in the country and see that the men
and women who become offenders for the first time or
even offenders for the second or the third time, as we call
them hopeless, are given an opportunity……..
……The meaning of probation is suspended sentence.
Suspended sentence means that he will be left in
society under the guidance and care of a probation
officer or of a surety or of such other agent who would
be able to look after him and assist him and see that
he behaves well and is able once again to become
what we call a good citizen……..
…..We are only trying to rehabilitate those many hundreds
and hundreds of offenders who because of, may be,
socio-economic considerations or other stringencies, or
574 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

may be, their mental make-up, commit certain offences.
Therefore, we have certain sections of the Indian Penal
Code only in which probation would be permitted to be
granted by courts…..”
13. From the above, it can safely be gathered that the object and
purpose of the 1958 Act is to rehabilitate offenders and make an
attempt to reintegrate them into the mainstream of the society as
reformed citizens, rather than to punish for their delinquent actions.
What weighed in the mind of the law makers was that crime is, more
often than not, a product of numerous socio-economic circumstances
and that punishment may in fact lead to further deterioration of
his character. In other words, the 1958 Act seeks to harmonize
deterrence and reformation while empowering the courts to release
the offenders after admonition or on probation of good conduct under
supervision of the probation officer. It saves the offenders from the
stigma of conviction as well as imprisonment and affords them an
opportunity to return to the social life with dignity. In light of the above
discussion, the 1958 Act requires purposive interpretation keeping
in mind its objectives.
14. Since the main argument of the Appellants is canvassed for the
benefit of 1958 Act, in particular Sections 3 and 4, we will deal with
the provisions empowering the Courts either to release the offender
after admonition or on probation of good conduct. To understand
the situations in which the benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958
Act can be made available to an offender, it is necessary to refer to
those provisions hereunder:
“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 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 so to do, then, notwithstanding
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 575

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

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.”
Upon reading of Section 3, it is apparent that benefit thereof can be
granted only when offender is found guilty of committing the offence
as specified therein or any offence punishable with not more than two
years or fine or both under IPC or any other law and such offender
does not have any antecedents of previous conviction. In the said
contingencies, if the Court is of the opinion that looking to the nature
of offence, circumstances and the character of offender, it is expedient
to do so, it may pass an order of release after admonition, instead
of sentencing or passing an order under Section 4.
15. Similarly, Section 4 deals with the cases of those offenders, who
can be released on probation of good conduct. For ready reference,
it is reproduced as thus:
“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,
576 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

if any, has a fixed place of abode or a regular occupation
in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or
in which the offender is likely to reside during the period
of the bond.
(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 is made under this section, 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 require the offender
to comply with such conditions as may be specified in the
supervision order.
(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section
(3) shall require the offender, before releasing him, to
enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the
conditions of the supervision order and such additional
conditions with respect to residence, abstention from
intoxicants or any other matter as the court having regard
to the particular circumstances of the case may think 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.”
16. A perusal of the above makes it clear that if a person is found guilty of
an offence which is not punishable with either death or imprisonment
for life and the Court, having regard to the circumstances of the case
which includes nature of the offence and the character of the offender,
is of the opinion that it is expedient to do so, notwithstanding any
other law for the time being in force, instead of sentencing at once
of any punishment for such offence, the accused may be released
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 577

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

on furnishing the bond, with or without sureties. It is also prescribed
that the Court may direct him to appear and receive the sentence
during such period when called upon, which may not exceed three
years. In the meantime, such person has to keep peace and be of
good behaviour. It is clarified that such an order ought to be passed
by the Court only after recording satisfaction regarding place of stay
of the offender or his surety or about the regular occupation in the
place where the court exercises jurisdiction or at a place where the
offender may likely reside during period of bond. The Court should
also take into consideration the report of the probation officer while
passing such order, if such report is available. An order of supervision
can also be passed by the Court, if it is of the opinion that such an
order will be in the interest of the offender and of the public, directing
the offender to remain under the supervision of a probation officer
named in the order during period, which shall not be less than one
year. The condition, if any, imposed by the Court, is required to
be complied with by the offender, as prescribed in the supervision
order. The offender is required to enter into a bond, with or without
sureties, and to observe the conditions as contained hereinabove
and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention
from intoxicants or any other matter which the Court may think
fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a
commission of other offences by the offender. The conditions, as
imposed for supervision and circumstances as indicated in the order
has to be explained to the offender and a copy of such order has
to be furnished to each offender, sureties and the probation officer.
17. At this stage, it is necessary to make it clear that under Section 3,
a convict can be released by the Court after admonition only with
respect to offences as specified therein. On the other hand, while
exercising the power under Section 4, the Court may release the
offender on probation of good conduct with respect to the offences
as prescribed.
18. It is not out of place to specify that in context of the object and reasons
for which the 1958 Act was brought, powers have been conferred
upon the Court primarily under Sections 3 and 4. As contemplated
under Section 11, the Courts are competent to make such orders
even during appeal and revision. Further, once the benefit either
under Section 3 or Section 4 has been granted to such offender, it
would entail the benefit of removal of disqualification, if any, attaching
578 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to the conviction. Therefore, Section 12, in this regard, is relevant,
which is reproduced as thus:
“12. Removal of disqualification attaching to
conviction. — Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law, a person who has been released on probation
of good conduct under Section 4 or after admonition under
Section 3 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, is sentenced to imprisonment for the
commission of the original offence or of any other offence.”
19. On perusal, it is quite clear that in case a person has been released
after admonition under Section 3 or on probation of good conduct
under Section 4, they shall not face a disqualification attaching to
such conviction.
20. Learned counsel for the Respondents vociferously objected to
extending the benefit of 1958 Act to A-1, A-2 and A-3 who have
been convicted for the charge of Section 324 IPC, in addition to the
charge of Section 323 IPC. It is contended that in Section 4 of the
1958 Act, the expression used ‘release of the offender’ has some
significance and in the case at hand, the Appellants have not been
sentenced of imprisonment but were fined, therefore, passing an
order of release in this case is not possible.
21. The said argument was countered by the Appellants, referring to
Section 53 of IPC and Section 4 of BNS, wherein fine has been
included within the connotation ‘punishment’ along with other
categories of punishment including imprisonment. The applicability of
Section 4 of 1958 Act is with respect to the offences not punishable
with death or life imprisonment, therefore barring the sentence
of death and life imprisonment, in case the punishment, if any,
including the fine has been awarded, the release order can be
passed by the Court under Section 4 of 1958 Act even in case of
fine.
22. Having considered the contentions as advanced and to appreciate
them, it would be necessary to refer to Section 53 of IPC and
corresponding provisions of Section 4 of BNS. Both the Sections
are reproduced hereunder in tabular form for comparison –
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 579

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

Section 53 of IPC Section 4 of BNS
53. Punishments. — The 4 . P u n i s h m en ts. — T h e
punishments to which offenders punishments to which offenders
are liable under the provisions of are liable under the provisions
this Code are — of this Sanhita are —
First – Death; (a) Death;
Secondly – Imprisonment for life; (b) Imprisonment for life;
Thirdly – [Omitted by Act 26 of (c) Imprisonment, which is of
1955, s. 117 and Sch.]; two descriptions, namely:—
Fourthly – Imprisonment, which (1) Rigorous, that is, with hard
is of two descriptions, namely: - labour;
(1) Rigorous, that is, with hard (2) Simple;
labour;
(d) Forfeiture of property;
(2) Simple;
(e) Fine;
Fifthly – Forfeiture of property;
(f) Community Service.
Sixthly – Fine.

23. In view of the above, it is clear that Section 53 of IPC has been
adopted as it is in Section 4 of BNS while also adding another
punishment in nature of community service. This is also indicative
of the paradigm shift in the legislative intent from deterrence to
reformation which has been reaffirmed while prescribing the mode
of punishment in BNS.
24. In view of the above, it is a clear that for an offender, the punishments
may include the death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment
(rigorous with hard labour or simple), forfeiture of property, fine and
community service in terms of the recent addition in BNS. Since
Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act govern acts committed by an
offender in relation to the specific punishments prescribed under
the IPC, BNS and any other law, these provisions must naturally
extend to sentences including fine. Consequently, the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the State that Section 4 is
inapplicable in case sentence consist solely of a fine, is entirely
devoid of merit.
580 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

25. Therefore, any reference to ‘punishment’ in 1958 Act has to be
construed as per enumeration contained in Section 53 of IPC and
Section 4 of BNS and should undoubtedly include ‘fine’ as well. From
the above discussion, it is luculent that, the benefit of Section 4 of
the 1958 Act is available to an offender who has been sentenced
only to payment of fine.
26. During course of arguments, much emphasis was laid by the Counsel
for the State that Section 4 uses the expression ‘release’ in context of
‘instead of sentencing’ and thus, when the person is sentenced only
for fine and not for imprisonment, there is no occasion for the Court
to ‘release’ him, thereby making application of Section 4 of 1958 Act
impossible. In light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs,
the expression ‘release’ has to be read accordingly. In this context,
we are of the opinion that ‘release’ cannot mean release only from
custody. It has to be read as releasing from the obligation to serve
sentence of payment of fine. This view is further strengthened by
the meaning of the word ‘release’ as contained in Advanced Law
Lexicon5. It is defined, inter-alia, as ‘to set at liberty’. Therefore,
‘release’ as contained in Section 4 of 1958 Act should be read as to
set the offender at liberty from receiving sentence, even of fine only.
27. In addition to the provisions as contained under the 1958 Act, the
CrPC also confers powers upon the Court to make an order of
release on probation of good conduct or after admonition as per
Section 3606. The said provision is reproduced as thus –
“360. Order to release on probation of good conduct
or after admonition. —
(1) When any person not under twenty-one years of age
is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or
with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or
when any person under twenty-one years of age or any
woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction
is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court
before which he is convicted, regard being had to the

5 P Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon, Pg. 4037 (3rd Edition, 2005, Wadhwa Nagpur)
6 Section 401 of BNSS is corresponding provision.
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 581

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to
the circumstances in which the offence was committed,
that it is expedient that the offender should be released
on probation of good conduct, 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 where any first offender is convicted by a
Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered
by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that
the powers conferred by this section should be exercised,
he shall record his opinion to that effect, and submit the
proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, forwarding
the accused to, or taking bail for his appearance before,
such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the
manner provided by sub-section (2).
(2) Where proceedings are submitted to a Magistrate
of the first class as provided by sub-section (1), such
Magistrate may thereupon pass such sentence or make
such order as he might have passed or made if the case
had originally been heard by him, and, if he thinks further
inquiry or additional evidence on any point to be necessary,
he may make such inquiry or take such evidence himself
or direct such inquiry or evidence to be made or taken.
(3) In any case in which a person is convicted of theft,
theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating
or any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
punishable with not more than two years, imprisonment
or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous
conviction is proved against him, the Court before which
he is so convicted may, if it thinks fit, having regard to
the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental
condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the
offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the
offence was committed, instead of sentencing him to any
punishment, release him after due admonition.
582 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(4) An order under this section may be made by any
Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session
when exercising its powers of revision.
(5) When an order has been made under this section in
respect of any offender, the High Court or Court of Session
may, on appeal when there is a right of appeal to such
Court, or when exercising its powers of revision, set aside
such order, and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such
offender according to law: Provided that the High Court
or Court of Session shall not under this sub-section inflict
a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by
the Court by which the offender was convicted.
(6) The provisions of sections 121, 124 and 373 shall,
so far as may be, apply in the case of sureties offered in
pursuance of the provisions of this section.
(7) The Court, before directing the release of an offender
under sub-section (1), shall be satisfied that an offender
or his surety (if any) has a fixed place of abode or regular
occupation in the place for which the Court acts or in which
the offender is likely to live during the period named for
the observance of the conditions.
(8) If the Court which convicted the offender, or a Court
which could have dealt with the offender in respect of his
original offence, is satisfied that the offender has failed to
observe any of the conditions of his recognizance, it may
issue a warrant for his apprehension.
(9) An offender, when apprehended on any such warrant,
shall be brought forthwith before the Court issuing the
warrant, and such Court may either remand him in custody
until the case is heard or admit him to bail with a sufficient
surety conditioned on his appearing for sentence and such
Court may, after hearing the case, pass sentence.
(10) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or the
Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960) or any other law for the time
being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation
of youthful offenders.”
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 583

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

28. From reading of the above, it is apparent that Section 360 of the
CrPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act share a common thread
i.e., reformation but at the same time their framework differs in their
scope and structure. Section 360 of CrPC creates eligibility distinctions
based on age and gender. In case of persons under 21 years of
age and women, benefit is extended to all offences not punishable
with death or life imprisonment, while restricting person not below 21
years of age to offences carrying a maximum of seven years or less
or fine only. On the other hand, Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act,
extend the benefit universally without any age or gender classification,
focusing on the nature of the offence and the character of the
offender. At this stage, it is also pertinent to take note of Section 6
of the 1958 Act, which casts a positive obligation upon the Court to
record reasons for not dealing the offender under Sections 3 and 4
of 1958 Act, in case such offender is below twenty-one years of age
having committed offence not punishable with imprisonment for life.
Therefore, the distinction sought to be created by Section 6 based
on age of the offender is in different context.
29. Benefit under Section 360(1) and (3) of CrPC can enure only in
absence of a prior conviction, whereas Section 4 of the 1958 Act
leaves antecedents of the offender to the Court’s discretion, and
Section 3 of the 1958 Act while requiring absence of prior conviction
also expands the concept of previous conviction to include prior
orders under the Section 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act itself. Importantly,
Section 360 CrPC is bereft of any supervisory mechanism whatsoever,
while Section 4 of the 1958 Act establishes an elaborate mechanism
involving probation officers, supervision orders, and conditions
as prescribed in sub-section (3) and (4). Moreover, 1958 Act
contemplates report of the probation officer which is absent from
the framework of Section 360 CrPC.
30. The relationship between the Section 360 of CrPC and the 1958 Act
has been subject matter of judicial pronouncements by this Court.
The Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Dutt (A-117) v. State of
Maharashtra7, while relying upon the inherent differences between
these two frameworks, held that they could not be intended to co-
exist. It was observed as thus –

7 2013 SCC OnLine SC 252
584 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“81. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does
not provide for any role for probation officers in assisting
the courts in relation to supervision and other matters
while the Probation of Offenders Act does make such a
provision. While Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders
Act states that a person found guilty of an offence and dealt
with under Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act, shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to
the conviction of an offence under any law. The Code of
Criminal Procedure does not contain parallel provision. Two
statutes with such significant differences could not be
intended to co-exist at the same time in the same area.
Such co-existence would lead to anomalous results.
The intention to retain the provisions of Section 360
of the Code and the Probation of Offenders Act as
applicable at the same time in a given area cannot be
gathered from the provisions of Section 360 or any
other provisions of the Code.”
31. Nonetheless, this issue fell for consideration before another Division
Bench in Lakhanlal v. State of M.P.8, where this Court held both the
frameworks to be mutually co-existent in following words –
“14. At this stage, it may be noticed that a two-Judge
Bench of this Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra
[Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC 1,
at p. 964 : (2014) 7 SCC (Cri) 1, at p. 964] considering
the provisions of Section 360 of the Code and Sections 3
and 4 of the 1958 Act held that the co-existence of such
provisions would lead to anomalous results. It was further
held that the intention to retain the provisions of Section
360 of the Code and the 1958 Act at the same time in
a given area cannot be gathered from the provisions of
Section 360 or any provision of the Code, when the Court
held as under : (SCC p. 1012, para 2935)
“2935. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure does not provide for any role for
probation officers in assisting the courts in

8 (2021) 6 SCC 100
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 585

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

relation to supervision and other matters while
the Probation of Offenders Act does make such
a provision. While Section 12 of the Probation of
Offenders Act states that a person found guilty
of an offence and dealt with under Section 3 or
4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, shall not
suffer disqualification, if any, attached to the
conviction of an offence under any law. The Code
of Criminal Procedure does not contain parallel
provision. Two statutes with such significant
differences could not be intended to co-exist
at the same time in the same area. Such co-
existence would lead to anomalous results. The
intention to retain the provisions of Section 360
of the Code and the Probation of Offenders
Act as applicable at the same time in a given
area cannot be gathered from the provisions of
Section 360 or any other provisions of the Code.”
15. We find that the attention of the Court was not drawn
to sub-section (10) of Section 360 which provides that
Section 360 will not affect the provisions of the 1958
Act or other similar laws for the time being in force
for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful
offenders. Still further, Section 4 of the 1958 Act has
a non obstante clause, giving overriding effect over
any other provisions of law.
16. The conjoint reading of the provisions of both the
statutes, we find that the provisions of Section 360 of
the Code are in addition to the provisions of the 1958
Act or the Children Act, 1960, or any other law for the time
being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation
of youthful offenders.”
32. Therefore, it can be concluded that there have been divergent
opinions of this Court with respect to relationship between Section
360 CrPC and 1958 Act. Be that as it may, we are only concerned
with the issue whether offenders sentenced with ‘fine only’ can be
granted benefit of Section 4 of 1958 Act and for that purpose alone
we may take assistance from the language of Section 360 of CrPC
586 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

which may be different in its scope, but forms part of the reformative
approach shared by both the frameworks.
33. Even under the provision of CrPC, the legislative intent is reflective
of the fact that in cases of minor offences that falls within the scope
of Section 360 of CrPC, deterrent approach of punishment ought
to be avoided while applying the reformative approach so that the
offender need not face the deleterious effect of jail life as well as
the stigma of conviction and such person can lead his life upon
reintegration in society with dignity.
34. At this stage, it is important to ascertain as to under what circumstances
an offender, who was found guilty for offences as prescribed, can avail
the benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act. It is also necessary
to enumerate what may be relevant factors for the Court that can be
taken into consideration while passing orders under Sections 3 and
4 of the 1958 Act. In this regard, we can profitably refer to various
precedents explaining the circumstances in which such benefit can
be extended.
35. In Rattan Lal (Supra), this Court was having an occasion to consider
the object of Sections 3 and 4, in general, and Section 6, in particular,
of the 1958 Act. It was observed that –
“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 conditions laid down in the appropriate provisions
of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21
years an injunction is issue 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
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 587

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

is not desirable to deal with them under Sections 3 and 4
of the Act.”
36. This Court, while considering the factors relevant for the purpose
of extending the benefit of Section 360 CrPC or of 1958 Act, in Ved
Prakash (Supra) opined that the Court must ascertain relevant
material regarding social background and the personal information
of the crime-doer. While releasing the accused on probation of good
conduct, this Court, through Krishna Iyer, J. observed as thus –
“…..The materials before us are imperfect because the trial
court has been perfunctory in discharging its sentencing
functions. We must emphasise that sentencing an
accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion
and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting
on hunch. The trial court should have collected
materials necessary to help award a just punishment
in the circumstances. The social background and the
personal factors of the crime-doer are very relevant
although in practice criminal courts have hardly
paid attention to the social milieu or the personal
circumstances of the offender. Even if Section 360 CrPC
is not attracted, it is the duty of the sentencing court to be
activist enough to collect such facts as have a bearing on
punishment with a rehabilitation slant…..
…..In the present case, the offender is a young person
and his antecedents have no blemish. His life is not
unsettled or restless and the report indicates that he
is an agriculturist, pursuing a peaceful vocation. His
parents are alive and he has a wife and children to
maintain. These are stabilising factors in life. A long
period of litigation and the little period of imprisonment
suffered, will surely serve as a deterrent. We are
mindful of the fact that a firearm has been used by
the appellant and we cannot sleep over the gravity of
the offence. Nevertheless, the report of the Probation
Officer states that the appellant is not given to any
bad habits or stresses of poverty. A land dispute led
to the crime and that does not survive any longer. The
Probation Officer recommends that an opportunity be
588 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

given to the appellant to improve himself and bring up
his family by honest labour as an agriculturist so that
the interests of social defence may be secured. We
are inclined to agree that in this case the appellant may
be given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. We
are satisfied that the offender has a fixed place of abode
and regular occupation. We are inclined also to rely on the
Probation Officer’s report which supports the direction for
release on probation. We, therefore, direct that the appellant
be released under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958, and instead of sentencing him, direct that he
be released on his entering into a bond before the trial
court with two sureties, one of whom shall be his father, to
appear and receive sentence when called upon during the
period of three years from the date of release and in the
meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
In addition, we pass an order that the Probation Officer
shall have supervision over the offender for a period of
one year and shall make reports once every three months
to the Sessions Court about the conduct of the offender.
We direct further, that the appellant shall be specially
supervised from the point of consumption of intoxicants
and the matter brought to the notice of the court in case
the appellant violates. The undertaking to be incorporated
in his bond shall contain a term that he shall not consume
alcohol during the period covered by the bond. We allow
the appeals in the manner above indicated.”
As indicated, other factors that were considered are age, antecedents,
character, habits, economic conditions, occupation, fixed place of
abode, familial responsibilities, gravity of offence, origin of dispute
etc., so that an opportunity can be given to the accused to improve
himself and to bring up his family or may live with sense of social
security.
37. Similarly, when grant of relief under Section 4 of the 1958 Act came
up for consideration in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh
Kuldip Singh Anand 9 for offences under Sections 324, 452/34

9 (2004) 7 SCC 659
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 589

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

IPC, this Court in the circumstances extended benefit of probation
subject to execution of a bond for good behavior. Factors that were
considered by this Court may have some significance; therefore, the
relevant paragraph is reproduced as under –
“27. The learned counsel appearing for the accused
submitted that the incident is of the year 1990. The parties
are educated and neighbours. The learned counsel,
therefore, prayed that benefit of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 may be granted to the accused.
The prayer made on behalf of the accused seems to
be reasonable. The incident is more than 10 years old.
The dispute was between the neighbours over a trivial
issue of cleaning of drainage. The incident took place
in a fit of anger. All the parties are educated and also
distantly related. The incident is not such as to direct
the accused to undergo sentence of imprisonment. In
our opinion, it is a fit case in which the accused should
be released on probation by directing them to execute a
bond of one year for good behaviour.”
38. In another case of Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana10, this Court
was having an occasion to consider the circumstances of the case
and the nature of offences in which the court may exercise power
under Section 4 of the 1958 Act. Although the plea of the accused in
that case vis-à-vis grant of such benefit was rejected, nonetheless,
it was observed as thus –
“8. Parliament made it clear that only if the court forms the
opinion that it is expedient to release him on probation for
his good conduct regard being had to the circumstances
of the case. One of the circumstances which cannot be
sidelined in forming the said opinion is “the nature of the
offence”.
9. Thus Parliament has left it to the court to decide when
and how the court should form such opinion. It provided
sufficient indication that releasing the convicted
person on probation of good conduct must appear

10 (2000) 5 SCC 82
590 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to the court to be expedient. The word “expedient” had
been thoughtfully employed by Parliament in the section
so as to mean it as “apt and suitable to the end in view”.
In Black’s Law Dictionary the word expedient is defined
as “suitable and appropriate for accomplishment of a
specified object” besides the other meaning referred to
earlier. In State of Gujarat v. Jamnadas G. Pabri [(1975)
1 SCC 138 : AIR 1974 SC 2233] a three-Judge Bench of
this Court has considered the word “expedient”. Learned
Judges have observed in para 21 thus: (SCC p. 145)
“Again, the word ‘expedient’ used in this provisions, has
several shades of meaning. In one dictionary sense,
‘expedient’ (adj.) means ‘apt and suitable to the end in view’,
‘practical and efficient’; ‘politic’; ‘profitable’; ‘advisable’, ‘fit,
proper and suitable to the circumstances of the case’. In
another shade, it means a device ‘characterised by mere
utility rather than principle, conducive to special advantage
rather than to what is universally right’ (see Webster’s New
International Dictionary).”
10. It was then held that the court must construe the said
word in keeping with the context and object of the provision
in its widest amplitude. Here the word “expedient” is
used in Section 4 of the PO Act in the context of
casting a duty on the court to take into account “the
circumstances of the case including the nature of the
offence…”. This means Section 4 can be resorted
to when the court considers the circumstances of
the case, particularly the nature of the offence, and
the court forms its opinion that it is suitable and
appropriate for accomplishing a specified object that
the offender can be released on probation of good
conduct.”
39. Therefore, release on probation of good conduct under Section 4
of the 1958 Act depends on the Court forming an opinion that such
release is expedient. In doing so, the Court must consider relevant
factors, particularly the nature of the offence. Naturally, probation
should be granted only where the Court records the satisfaction as
per the factors indicated above, and grant of benefit would serve
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 591

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

the purpose with intent to reform the offenders. The said judgment
has been followed in the case of Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P.11,
whereby benefit under Section 4 of the 1958 Act in a case involving
offences under Section 323 and 498-A of IPC along with Section
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was granted by this Court.
40. In light of the above analysis, now we may embark upon to consider
the case of Appellants for purpose of benefit under 1958 Act. In the
instant case, the Appellants were convicted under Section 323 and
324 of IPC and the allegations as proved relates to assault upon the
persons belonging to same locality. The Appellants were sentenced
to pay a fine of only Rs. 500/- under Section 323 and Rs. 2000/-
under Section 324 of IPC. As such, it is apparent that, the trial Court
as well as the High Court did not award any imprisonment to the
Appellants and directed only payment of fine.
41. Moreover, this Court vide order dated 10.02.2025 sought report
from the State regarding the conduct and of any subsequent or
prior involvement in commission of any offence. In the affidavit filed
on 22.02.2025, it is said that only present criminal case has been
registered against the Appellants. Further, as borne from the records,
it is seen that A-1 and A-4 are employed with State Government
in Public Work Department and as Assistant Teacher in Education
Department respectively. It is also pertinent to note that the Appellants
have not committed an offence involving moral turpitude. Given the
said circumstances and considering the purport of Section 3 and
Section 4 of 1958 Act, we find it expedient to extend the benefit of
said provisions to the Appellants.

CONCLUSION
42. In view of the above discussion, A-1, A-2 and A-3 who have been
sentenced with fine under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section
34 of IPC, therefore, they do not satisfy the pre-requisite contained in
Section 3. Thus, while confirming the conviction, we direct that they
be granted benefit under Section 4(1) of the 1958 Act and instead of
sentencing them, we direct that they be released on entering into a
bond for one year before the jurisdictional Trial Court with sureties.
Moreover, they are further directed to appear and receive sentence

11 (2017) 2 SCC 198
592 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

as and when called upon during the said period from the date of
release. They shall further maintain peace and good behavior, and
the Probation Officer shall keep supervision and submit report once
in every three months to the Court concerned. Any other conditions
may also be imposed by the Court, if deemed necessary.
43. Insofar as A-4 is concerned, he has been sentenced for the charge
under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, which satisfies the
pre-requisites of Section 3 of 1958 Act. Therefore, we extend the
benefit of the said Section in his favour and instead of sentencing
him, we direct that he be released after due admonition by the
jurisdictional Court.
44. We make it clear that the amount of fine as directed by the Trial
Court and confirmed by High Court, to be paid by all the Appellants,
if not already deposited, shall be deposited before the jurisdictional
Court, and be treated as compensation towards the victim(s). The
amount shall be paid within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this
judgment, failing which, the jurisdictional Court shall take appropriate
steps for recovery and send a report to the Registry of this Court.
45. Moreover, since all the Appellants have been extended the benefit
under Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act, they shall not incur any
disqualification affecting their service career, if any, arising out of the
conviction, in terms of Section 12 of the 1958 Act.
46. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed-of in above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed-of.

Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey