Allahabad High Court
Babu Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. on 7 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:106392
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2795 of 1988
Babu Singh And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
V.P. Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant No.1, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. As per office report dated 06.05.2026, notice has served to appellant No. 2 Raghubans Singh personally, however, none has appeared for the appellant No. 2.
3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.11.1986 passed by Special Judge, Moradabad in Case No. 17 of 1985 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with U.P. Ganna Khareed Pratibandh Aadesh, 1966 for six months R.I. each and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.
4. Today, the present Criminal Appeal is listed under the category of oldest pending cases in this High Court for priority basis.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not inclined to argue the case on merits and seeks the benefit of probation as the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 with the maximum punishment of six months R.I.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment in the case of Subhash Chand & others Vs. State of U.P. (2015 Law Suit (All) 1343) and the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No. 1319 of 1999 (Hargovind & Others vs. State of U.P.) passed by this Court on 11.01.2019.
Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads as follows:
"3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.- When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the court by which the person i9*s found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4 release him after due admonition.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4."
7. Thus, this was the bounden duty of the learned Trial Court and also the appellate court to consider why they did not proceed to grant the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads as follows:
"4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.-(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.
(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.
(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.
(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned."
8. These statutory provisions very emphatically lay down the reformatory and correctional object of sentencing and obligates the trial court as well as appellate courts to give benefit of probation in fit cases as provided under law. Unfortunately, this branch of law has not been much utilized by the trial courts. It becomes more relevant and important in our system of administration of justice where trial is often concluded after a long time and by the time decision assumes finality, the very purpose of sentencing looses its efficacy as with the passage of time the penological and social priorities change and there remains no need to inflict punishment of imprisonment, particularly when the appellant is at advance age and there is no criminal antecedent of the accused person. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed.
9. That it is also noteworthy that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P and Ors., AIR 2017 SC page 660, was pleased to observe as under:
"20-.........In Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 444. Subba Rao, J., speaking for the majority, opined thus:-
"The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated, the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the conditions laid down in the appropriate provisions of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case; including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act."13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan 2025 INSC 46 had released the appellant who was at his advance age, by extending the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.".
10. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarak Nath Keshari v. State of West Bengal; Criminal Appeal No. 1444 of 2023 while releasing the appellant on probation convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, has observed that "Even if there is minimum sentence provided in Section 7 of the EC Act, in our opinion, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of probation, the EC Act, being of the year 1955 and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being later. Even if minimum sentence is provided in the EC Act, 1955 the same will not be a hurdle for invoking the applicability of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958."
11. That it is noteworthy that the incident took place way back in the year 1987. The accused-appellants have suffered prolonged criminal proceeding and learned A.G.A. could not indicate any criminal antecedent of the appellants during these years.
12. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the benefit of provision of the Act of 1958 should be extended to the accused/appellants as they have been convicted only under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 with the maximum sentence of six months R.I.
13. Hence, while maintaining the conviction, it is directed that, appellant No. 1 Babu Singh Saini and appellant No.2 Raghubans Singh be released giving the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Consequently, the appellants shall file personal bond before District Probation Officer concerned and also an undertaking to keep peace and good behaviour for the period of six months from the date of filing of bail bonds.The accused-appellants shall deposit the fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, as impugned in the judgment under appeal, within a period of one month from the date of the judgment, if the same has not been deposited till date.
14. If there is breach of any of the conditions, the appellants will be taken into custody and will have to undergo sentence awarded to them.
15. With the above modification, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed.
16. Office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record to the court concerned for information and necessary action.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) May 7, 2026 Aditya Tripathi