Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 4 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Appeal against acquittal – Duty of Appellate Court -- Limitation -- Trial Court acquitted the appellants -- Sessions Court convicted the appellants, however, granted a relief of probation -- High Court has not gone into the question, whether the Sessions Court was aware of the limitations of the appeal against acquittal -- 3 prosecution witnesses and 7 defence witnesses have been examined, there is not even a reference to the depositions of the said witnesses in the impugned judgment -- Impugned order set aside, matter  remanded for fresh consideration by the High Court.

(Para 3-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4, 5 -- Conviction u/s 452, 324, 323, 506 IPC – Accused released on probation – Probation period already stands expired -- Compensation as ordered by the Appellate Court already stand deposited – Held, nothing survives in the criminal revision, dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 12 – Conviction of employee –Probation – Termination of service -- Appellant ordered to be released on probation of good conduct -- Employee cannot claim a right to continue in service merely on the ground that he has been given benefit of probation – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Murder -- Life imprisonment – Premature release – Non-deposit of fine – Not known to anyone in locality – Ground of rejection -- Petitioner requires to undergo actual sentence of 10 years; and sentence of 14 years by including the remission period, as per Policy, but despite having undergone actual sentence of more than 14 years; and total sentence of more than 22 years by including remission;

-- In case, petitioner has not paid the fine imposed by the court, he is required to undergo default sentence as per the trial court judgment but that cannot be reason to consider petitioner’s case for premature release.

-- If family of petitioner has shifted from earlier address, that again cannot be the reason to decline the relief, once petitioner has fulfilled the parameters provided in the policy.

-- simply because petitioner is not known to anyone in Ludhiana, cannot be a ground to presume that his presence there will create a law and order situation.

Petition allowed, respondents directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(Para 1, 5-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 304-A, 337 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Conviction for causing death by rash and negligent driving – Protracted trial – Probation -- Accident in October, 1999 -- Criminal proceedings for more than 23 years -- Petitioner not involved in any other criminal case and also not misused the concession of bail -- Petitioner was Government employee, after his conviction, he was dismissed from service -- Instead of sending the petitioner behind bars, ordered to release him on probation to serve ends of justice.

(Para 1,9-12,16)

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 324, 506 – Conviction for one year sentence – Probation – Petitioner already undergone imprisonment for one month and twenty five days – He is first time offender and no other case is pending against him -- Taking into account the young age of convict, protracted trial, antecedents of the convict as well as the period of his incarceration, Court felt, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified by extending the benefit of probation to the petitioners -- Revision partly allowed, sentence part modified, petitioner directed to be released on probation to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of one year.

(Para 11, 12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Probation – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 2000 and the present appeal has been pending since 2012 – No material on record that the accused-petitioner has any criminal antecedents – Held, the accused-petitioner are entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 -- Petitioner ordered to be released on probation, u/s 4 of the Act.

(Para 12-14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 360, 361-- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 3, 4 -- Theft case – Release on probation – Sentence for simple imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs. 3000/- -- Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct -- Similarly, Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr.P.C also empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct – There are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct -- Appellants ordered to be released on probation of good conduct.

(Para 3-6)

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4, 5 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 325, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Conviction for 2 years – Release on probation in appeal – Challenge to -- All the accused persons are the first time offenders have not committed any other offence pursuant to the occurrence in dispute, which is also of the year 2012 -- Further, the convicts are facing the agony of trial for about 10 years -- They are all poor persons, with their families to look after and as such sending them behind bars after almost 10 years of the occurrence would not serve any purpose – Compensation amount enhanced from Rs.2,500/- each to Rs.5,000/- each.

(Para 10)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61/1/14 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4, 5-- Excise matter – Heavy recovery – Benefit of Probation – Conviction for six months -- Plea of non-following of due process while getting the sample examined -- Considered by the Courts below, wherein, a finding has been recorded that the sample so taken was never tampered with in any manner so as to cause prejudice to the petitioner and the delay in sending the sample for examination itself is no ground to discard the report – Typographical mistake in mentioning the Vehicle number – Prayer that Petitioner being a first offender be granted the benefit of probation – Held, once, the recovery from the petitioner is on the heavy side, no ground is made out to grant the said prayer of the petitioner.

(Para 1, 4-8)

Constitution of India, Article 72, 161 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 364-A – United Provinces Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 (UP Act 8 of 1938), Section 2 -- Offence of kidnapping for ransom – Sentenced for life imprisonment – Pre-mature release/ Probation – Right of -- No convict can claim remission as a matter of right -- However, in the case, the circumstances are different – Length of the sentence or the gravity of the original crime can’t be the sole basis for refusing premature release – Any assessment regarding predilection to commit crime upon release must be based on antecedents as well as conduct of the prisoner while in jail, and not merely on his age or apprehensions of the victims and witnesses – Conduct of both petitioners has been more than satisfactory -- They have no material criminal antecedents, and have served almost 16 years in jail (22 years including remission) -- During the course of his incarceration in jail he has pursued as many as eight distance-learning courses -- A balance between individual and societal welfare can be struck by granting the petitioners conditional premature release, subject to their continuing good conduct -- This would both ensure that liberty of the petitioners is not curtailed, nor that there is any increased threat to society -- Suffice to say that this order is not irreversible and can always be recalled in the event of any future misconduct or breach by the petitioners -- Petitions disposed of with a direction that the petitioners be released on probation in terms of Section 2 of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 within a period of two weeks -- Respondent-State shall be at liberty to impose conditions as it may deem fit to balance public safety with individual liberty.

(Para 16-22)