Convicts Sentenced To Only Fine Also Entitled To Benefit Of Probation Of Offenders Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that offenders sentenced only to payment of a fine can still be granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ordered the release of convicts, who were convicted under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC for assault and were sentenced to only a fine of Rs. 500-2,000/- without any substantive punishment. The Court rejected the 'narrow' construction of the term 'release' under Section 4 of the 1958 Act, stating that “'release' cannot mean release only from custody. It has to be read as releasing from the obligation to serve a sentence of payment of fine.” The Court said that 'fine' is itself a form of punishment under the penal law and thus, 'release' under the statute includes release from the obligation to undergo such punishment. The case arose out of a local altercation where the accused were convicted under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC for assault. Both the trial court and the Bombay High Court imposed only fines (₹500–₹2,000), with no substantive imprisonment. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants did not challenge their conviction but sought the benefit of probation under Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act. The State opposed the plea, contending that since there was no punishment of imprisonment, the concept of 'release' was inapplicable under Section 4. However, the Court firmly rejected this narrow reading, holding that “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…. thus, the benefit of Section 4 of the 1958 Act is available to an offender who has been sentenced only to payment of fine.” “'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.”, the court added. In terms of the aforesaid, the Court disposed of the appeal, with a direction to release the Appellants on probation subject to the fulfilment of conditions of good conduct and supervision.HeadnoteProbation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Sections 3 and 4 – Applicability where sentence is fine only – Held - The benefit of Section 4 of the 1958 Act is available to an offender who has been sentenced only to payment of fine - The expression 'release' in Section 4 cannot mean release only from custody; it must be read as releasing the offender from the obligation to serve the sentence, including the payment of fine - Any reference to 'punishment' in the 1958 Act must be construed as per Section 53 IPC and Section 4 BNS, which undoubtedly include 'fine'. [Paras 24, 25, 26]Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Section 12 – Removal of disqualification – Held: Since the Appellants were extended the benefit under Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act, they shall not incur any disqualification affecting their service careers arising out of the conviction - Held: While Section 360 CrPC and the 1958 Act share a common reformative thread, their frameworks differ - Section 360 CrPC creates eligibility distinctions based on age and gender, whereas Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act extend benefits universally, focusing on the nature of the offence and the character of the offender - Held: The 1958 Act is a beneficial legislation intended to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders into society - Its provisions must be interpreted in a purposive manner, and where two views are possible, the interpretation must favor the beneficiaries. [Relied on Ved Prakash v. State of Haryana (1981) 1 SCC 447; Paras 28 - 45]Cause Title: MILIND S/O ASHRUBA DHANVE AND ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRACitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 370Click here to download judgmentAppearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR; Mr. Vishal Jogdand, Advocate; Mr. B. Pallesh Lakshmi, Advocate; Ms. Akshada, Advocate; and Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR.

Convicts Sentenced To Only Fine Also Entitled To Benefit Of Probation Of Offenders Act : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Convicts Sentenced To Only Fine Also Entitled To Benefit Of Probation Of Offenders Act : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers