[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalvinder Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana on 12 January, 2026
CRR-2260-2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
264
CRR-2260-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.01.2026
Dalvinder Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Shivam Chaudhary, Advocate and
Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)
for the petitioners.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Manvir Singh Kamboj, Advocate for
Mr. S. S. Kamboj, Advocate
for the complainant.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
challenging the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2016 and order on quantum
of sentence dated 21.12.2016, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in case titled as
State vs. Davinder Singh and another, arising out of FIR No. 68 dated
28.07.2012, registered under Sections 323, 325 and 34 of IPC at Police Station
Panjokhra, District Ambala, whereby the petitioners had been held guilty and
convicted under the aforesaid sections and were sentenced to undergo rigorous
1 of 8
CRR-2260-2019 (O&M) -2-
imprisonment for a period of maximum one year along with default clause of
fine, and also against the judgment dated 26.08.2019, passed by the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as 'appellate
Court'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners had been dismissed.
2. It is relevant to mention that since no one was appearing on behalf
of the petitioners since long, Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate was appointed as
amicus curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the petitioners, vide order dated
10.11.2025. However, his name had wrongly been mentioned as 'Manjit Singh'
in the said order due to a typographical error.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that
they do not intend to press the petition on the grounds as taken in the revision
petition and restrict their argument to the extent that benefit of probation be
granted to the petitioners. In view thereof, the sole consideration before this
Court is as to whether the prayer made by the petitioners for extending benefit of
probation can be accepted or not?
4. As mentioned above, the petitioners had been held guilty by the trial
Court for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read
with Section 34 of IPC. Their appeal had been dismissed by the appellate Court
as mentioned above. The petitioners are facing rigors of litigation from the last
more about 13 years. Much water has flown since then. The petitioners have
already undergone actual imprisonment for a period of 17 days and in the
intervening period, they are not shown to be involved in any other case. They
have clean antecedents. They are leading happy and peaceful life with their
families. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that the
petitioners are entitled to the benefit of probation.
2 of 8
CRR-2260-2019 (O&M) -3-
5. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the
complainant has no serious objection to the limited prayer made by the
petitioners.
6. Before considering the prayer made by the petitioners to release
them on probation, let us have a look on the law on this point. The aims and
object of the Probation Act came to be decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in case
Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1972 AIR (SC) 2522. Hon'ble Supreme
Court while considering the scope of the Probation Act had held as under:-
"The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a view
to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on
probation or after due admonition and for matters connected
therewith. The object of the Act is to prevent the conversion of
youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their
association with hardened criminals of mature age in case the
youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail.
The above object is in consequence with the present trend in the
field of penology, according to which effort should be made to
bring about correction and reformation of the individual offenders
and not to resort to retributive justice. Modern criminal
jurisprudence recognizes that no one is a born criminal and that a
good many crimes are the product of socio-economic milieu.
Although not much can be done for hardened criminals,
considerable stress has been laid on bringing about reform of
young offenders not guilty of very serious offences and of
preventing their association with hardened criminals."
7. Reliance can also be placed upon Isher Das v. State of Punjab, AIR
1972 Supreme Court 1295 and Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas
and others, 1974 AIR (SC) 1818, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken the
3 of 8
CRR-2260-2019 (O&M) -4-
similar view. Relevant paragraph of Arvind Mohan Sinha's case (supra) reads as
under:-
"The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its
object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity
of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society. A jail
term should normally be enough to wipe out the stain of guilt but
the sentence which the society passes on convicts is relentless.
The ignominy commonly associated with a jail term and the
social stigma which attached to convicts often render the remedy
worse than the disease and the year purposes of punishment
stands in the danger of being frustrated. In recalcitrant cases
punishment has to be deterrent so that others similarly minded
may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of
crime. But the novice who strays into the path of crime ought, in
the interest of society, be treated as being socially stick. Crimes
are not always rooted in criminal tendencies and their origin may
lie in psychological factors induced by hunger, want and poverty.
The Probation of Offenders Act recognises the importance of
environmental influence in the commission of crimes and
prescribes a remedy whereby the offender can be reformed and
rehabilitated in society. An attitude of social defiance and
recklessness which comes to a convict who, after a jail term, is
apt to think that he has no more to lose or fear may breed a litter
of crime. The object of the Probation of Offenders Act is to nip
that attitude in the bud. Winifred A Sikin describes probation as a
system which provides a means of re-education without the
necessity of breaking up the offender's normal life and removing
him from the natural surroundings of his home. (English Juvenile
Courts (1938) page 162) Edwin R. Sutherland raises it to a status
of a convicted offender. (Principles of Criminology, 4th Edn.
(1947) page 383)."
4 of 8
CRR-2260-2019 (O&M) -5-
8. In view of the ratio of law as laid down in aforecited judgment, the
question that arises before this Court is that as to whether the petitioners are
entitled to the benefit of probation or not? In the considered opinion of this
Court, the answer to this question must be in the affirmative.
9. The object underlying the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for brevity "the Probation Act") and
Sections 360 & 361 of Cr.PC, is that the first offenders be not sent to jail for the
commission of less serious offences, on account of grave risk to their attitude to
life to which they are likely to be exposed as a result of their association with the
hardened and habitual criminal inmates of the jail. Their stay in jail in such
circumstances might well attract them towards a life of crime instead of
reforming them. This would clearly cause more harm than to reform them, and
for that reason, it would perhaps also be to an extent prejudicial to the larger
interests of the society as a whole. Perhaps that was the reason that the
mandatory injunction against imposition of sentence of imprisonment has been
embodied in Section 6 of the Probation Act. This mandate is inspired by the
desire to keep the young delinquent/first offenders away from the possibility of
association or close contact with hardened criminals and their evil influence.
Therefore, these beneficial provisions have to be liberally construed.
10. The sole intention of the legislature in passing probation laws is to
give person of a particular type of chance of reformation, which they would not
get if sent to prison. The types of persons, who are in the contemplation of the
legislature under the probation law are those who are not hardened or dangerous
criminals, but those who have committed offences under some momentary
weakness of character or some tempting situation. By placing the offender on
5 of 8
CRR-2260-2019 (O&M) -6-
probation, the Court saves him from the stigma of jail life and also from the
contaminating influence of hardened prison inmates. Probation also serves
another purpose, which is quite significant though of secondary importance. It
helps in eliminating overcrowding in jails by keeping many offenders away from
the prison. Section 360 Cr.P.C. deals with order to release the accused on
probation of good conduct or after admonition, whereas Section 361 Cr.P.C.
provides that "where in any case the Court could have dealt with an accused
person under Section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation Act, but has
not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having
done so."
11. Therefore, the conjoint and meaningful reading of the beneficial
provisions of the Probation Act would reveal that non-obstante clause contained
in Section 4 that points to the conclusion that the provisions of this Section
would have overriding effect, shall prevail if the conditions described therein are
fulfilled. Meaning thereby, the Court has the ample power to release the first
offender of minor offences on probation, keeping into focus the nature & manner
of the crime, age of the offender, other antecedents and attending circumstances
of the offence instead of committing him to jail.
12. Likewise, Section 4 of the Probation Act postulates that 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
the 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
6 of 8
CRR-2260-2019 (O&M) -7-
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. The learned State counsel
has acknowledged the factual matrix of the case and legal position.
13. In view of the discussion as made above and also considering the
attendant facts and circumstances of the case and also the agony and trauma,
which the petitioners have undergone during protracted trial, appeal, revision,
their antecedent, nature of offence, totality of other facts & circumstances
emanating from the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful
purpose would be served by detaining them into jail to serve out the remaining
period of sentence and instead of that, they be released on probation.
Accordingly, it is directed that petitioners be released on probation on their
furnishing personal bond (within one month) in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to
the conditions that they would keep the peace and be of good behaviour, for a
period of one year from the date of passing of this order and shall disclose their
present address(es) and phone number(s) before the trial Court in the form of an
affidavit at the time of furnishing bonds. Needless to mention that in case, they
are found to be indulged in any illegal activities, the sentence awarded to them
by the appellate Court shall stand revived.
14. As such, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed on merits
and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of fine are
maintained. However, the order of sentence is accordingly modified to the extent
and in the manner depicted herein above.
7 of 8
CRR-2260-2019 (O&M) -8-
15. Needless to mention that natural consequences & compliance will
follow accordingly.
12.01.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
