'Outrageously Unfair': Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Sentence Imposed On 75-Yr Old For Violating Probation Conditions, Imposes ₹50 Fine Instead

Observing that "the idea of just justice can only be realised through compassion," the Punjab & Haryana High Court said that it was "outrageously unfair" to send an elderly man, of 75 years age, to undergo three-year custody by sentencing him for the original offence for violating the probation conditions.

Instead, the High Court applied Section 9 of the Probation of Offenders Act and imposed a fine of Rs.50.

As per Section 9 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 if the offender fails to observe any conditions of the bonds he entered into, then he may be sentenced "for the original offence" or "where the failure is for the first time, then, "a penalty not exceeding fifty rupees" can be imposed.

In the case on hand, the CJM revoked the concession of probation granted to a 75-year-old man and sentenced him for the original offence to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment for violating the conditions of the bond he entered into.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "Justice and compassion are mutually inclusive. While accountability and fairness are integral facets of justice, the idea of just justice can only be realised through compassion. However, the said purpose cannot be achieved if justice is dispensed only on the anvil of accountability in a mechanical manner, devoid of context and nuance."

It added that it was outrageously unfair to send an elderly man, of 75 years of age, to undergo custody for 3 years by sentencing him for the original offence under Section 9(3)(a) of the Act.

It therefore invoked Section 482 of the CrPC to grant the benefit of Section 9(3)(b) of the Act to the petitioner instead and imposed a fine of Rs. 50 for violating the conditions of his probation.

The Court was hearing the plea of an elderly 75-year-old person under Section 482 CrPC seeking the quashing of the order passed by CJM, Jhajjar whereby the concession of probation granted to the petitioner was revoked in an FIR lodged in 1995.

The Trial Court convicted the petitioner but in 2013, the Additional Sessions Judge modified the order to grant him the benefit of probation. The period of probation was fixed for one year and it was ordered that in the event of registration of any other case of a serious nature against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence would be revisited by the trial court.

Thereafter in 2014, the petitioner was accused by his brother in another FIR alleging that he, along with his sons and wife, attacked the complainant in his own house and inflicted serious injuries thereby committing another offence during his probation period.

A complaint was filed by the petitioner's brother before the CJM, seeking cancellation of the benefit of probation as its conditions were violated by the petitioner.

In 2019, the CJM set aside the probation granted to the petitioner and he was sentenced for the original offence- to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was a 75-year-old man who had been falsely implicated in the second FIR, just one month short of the completion of his probation period.

Justice Brar noted that the petitioner was an elderly man of 75 years of age who had been suffering the agony of trial since 1995. It was submitted that he had peacefully spent 11 months out of the probation period of 12 months, without recording any untoward incident.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the District Probation Officer had emphasised the petitioner's consistent good behaviour, advanced age and social status, noting that he had served as a member of the Panchayat on one occasion and Sarpanch twice, and also recommended mercy.

In light of the above, the Court opined that "in a society rife with conflict and apathy, the goodness of justice must not be perceived as aloof and stiff, therefore this Court is obligated to take a more sensitive approach to the plight of the petitioner in view of his age and to ensure that he is not rendered remediless by adopting a hyper-technical approach."

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order, whereby the probation of the petitioner was cancelled, and directed him to deposit Rs. 50 instead.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 62

Appearance: Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner

Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.