The Supreme Court has ruled that when the conditions under the Probation of Offenders Act are met, courts have no discretion to deny probation to the convict. This significant ruling came in the case titled Chellammal and Another vs State Represented by the Inspector of Police, where the appellants sought release on probation instead of serving a one-year jail sentence.
“Unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the conditions in Section 4(1) of the Probation Act are fulfilled, the court must consider probation. It is not a matter of choice,” the bench stated.
Read Also:- SC Slams Kerala HC For Quashing POCSO Case Against Teacher Accused of Harassing 52 Students
A division bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan made it clear that even though an offender cannot claim probation as a right, once the statutory requirements are satisfied, courts are duty-bound to evaluate the option of probation.
The appellants did not challenge their conviction. Instead, they requested probation under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows courts to release first-time offenders above 21 years on probation if the offence is punishable by imprisonment up to seven years or a fine.
“The Sessions Judge and the High Court, by ignoring the eligibility of the appellants for probation, caused a failure of justice,” the Supreme Court observed.
The Court criticized the lower courts for not considering probation, despite clear legal provisions and eligibility. It emphasized that if a convict qualifies under the law, courts must obtain a probation officer's report and assess whether release on probation is suitable.
Read Also:-
In support of its view, the Court referred to Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar, where it was earlier held that post-conviction, courts must analyze whether the accused deserves probation before passing a sentence.
“The lower courts failed to carry out their mandatory duty of considering probation. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court for limited consideration on this point,” the apex court concluded.
As a result, while upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and sent the matter back to the High Court to decide the probation request after receiving a probation officer’s report.
Case Title: CHELLAMMAL AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Rajaraman, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
