The Gujarat High Court has observed that while an accused cannot claim probation as a matter of right however the underlying object of the law of probation is reformatory in nature rather than merely to punish the accused. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 303]

It said that once the requisite conditions are satisfied, the Court is duty bound to consider whether the case is fit for releasing the offender on probation. In doing so the court upheld a sessions court's order granting probation to four accused convicted for assaulting the complainant, observing that the

The complainant had challenged sessions court's order granting probation to respondent Nos.2 to 5.

It was alleged that the accused persons picked up a quarrel with the prosecution witness on account of him contesting the election against the former and assaulted him. An FIR was lodged against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 323(voluntarily causing hurt), 324((voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 504, 506(2) (criminal intimidation) IPC.

After trial, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad convicted respondent Nos.2 to 5 and sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 114 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 114 of the IPC.

Each of the accused was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the judgment the respondents moved before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court upheld the conviction order but granted benefit of probation to the accused persons, subject to their maintaining good behaviour and keeping peace in the society.

Justice RT Vachhani noted that no untoward incident had been reported against the accused persons, nor has any breach of peace been committed by them.

The court said:

"It is true that an accused cannot claim the benefit of probation as a matter of right. However, the object underlying the law of probation is reformatory in nature, i.e. to reform the offender rather than merely to punish him, which is the avowed aim of both the Court and the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has laid down the principles governing the extension of the benefit of probation and has consistently held that once the requisite conditions are satisfied, the Court is duty bound to consider whether the case before it is a fit case for releasing the offender on probation.

The Court is vested with the discretion to extend such benefit on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit and proper. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Sessions Court has not committed any error, much less an error apparent on the face of the record, in extending the benefit of probation to the accused persons. The impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or impropriety so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction".

It was alleged that the accused – Bhavnaben is the sitting Sarpanch of the village and that she and her family members are politically influential persons in the locality. It was further submitted that even after the commission of the present offence, the accused persons have continued to indulge in serious offences against the society and several criminal antecedents are registered against them, which clearly reflects their settled propensity towards crime.

It was submitted that such antecedents were specifically brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Court by the applicant by way of written objections; however, the Sessions Court has failed to consider the said material and no finding has been recorded thereon. It was also submitted that before extending the benefit of probation, the Sessions Court was duty bound to examine the character, conduct and antecedents of the accused persons, along with the nature of the offence and the attending circumstances of the case. However, none of the considerations have been properly appreciated.

It was submitted that Sessions Court solely relied upon the report of the Probation Officer, which is deficient and unreliable, without independently testing the same against the material available on record.

The court dismissed the plea.