Chellammal & Anr. v. State

4 S.C.R. 2306 : 2025 INSC 540 Chellammal and Another v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 2065 of 2025) 22 April 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants could be granted the benefit of probation either u/s.360(1) of CrPC or u/s.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; whether the High Court was justified in not extending the benefit of probation to the appellants. Headnotes† Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – sub-section (1) of s.4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.360 – Appellants were jointly tried for commission of offences u/ss.304-B and 498-A of IPC – The Sessions Court acquitted the appellants of charge u/s.304-B but convicted them u/s.498-A of IPC – The High Court maintained the conviction of appellants u/s.498-A of IPC – Plea by the appellants to set aside the sentence of imprisonment by enhancing the fine – Interference with: Held: No interference with the conviction u/s.498-A of IPC – Fine is not an alternative to imprisonment – Considering grant of probation – An offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation as a matter of right but it is held that, unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in s.4(1) of the Probation Act are attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its consideration release of the offender on probation; on the contrary, a mandatory duty is cast upon the court to consider whether the case before it warrants releasing the offender upon fulfilment of the stated circumstances – The question of grant of probation could be decided either way – In the event, the court in its discretion decides to extend the benefit of probation, it may upon considering the report of the probation officer impose such conditions as deemed just and proper – However, if the answer be in the negative, it would only be just and proper for the court to record the reasons therefor – In the instant case, the Sessions Judge and the High Court by omitting * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2307 to consider whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of probation, occasioned a failure of justice – The matter remitted to the High Court for limited consideration of the question of grant of probation to the appellants upon obtaining a report of the relevant probation officer. [Paras 6, 9, 28, 31] Probation of Offender Act, 1958 – sub-section (1) of s.4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.360 – Comparison of: Held: On a comparative study of s.360, Cr.PC and sub-section (1) of s.4 of the Probation Act, what is revealed is that the latter is wider and expansive in its coverage than the former – Inter alia, while s.360 permits release of an offender, more twenty-one years old, on probation when he is sentenced to imprisonment for less than seven years or fine, s.4 of the Probation Act enables a court to exercise its discretion in any case where the offender is found to have committed an offence such that he is punishable with any sentence other than death or life imprisonment – Additionally, the non-obstante clause in sub-section gives overriding effect to sub-section (1) of s.4 over any other law for the time being in force – Also, s.361, Cr.PC itself, being a subsequent legislation, engrafts a provision that in any case where the court could have dealt with an accused under the provisions of the Probation Act but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons therefor. [Para 26] Case Law Cited