Probation requires probation officer's report and full disclosure; suppression of prior conviction can vitiate relief.

Before extending probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the court must call for and consider the probation officer's report and assess the offender's antecedents, including any prior conviction. The text treats that report as mandatory in the exercise of discretion, and says probation was not sustainable where the offender was a previous convict and the required report was not obtained. It also states that suppression of an earlier conviction and non-disclosure of material facts amounts to concealment of vital information, disentitling the offender to relief and justifying interference with the impugned order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the benefit of probation could be extended without calling for and considering the probation officer's report; (ii) Whether suppression of an earlier conviction and non-disclosure of material facts justified interference with the High Court's order.

Issue (i): Whether the benefit of probation could be extended without calling for and considering the probation officer's report.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 requires the court, before releasing an offender on probation of good conduct, to consider the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the character of the offender, and the report, if any, of the probation officer. The requirement to call for the report is treated as mandatory, and the offender's antecedents are relevant to the exercise of discretion. On the materials before it, the respondent was also a previous convict, which weighed against extending probation.

Conclusion: The grant of probation without obtaining the required report and without properly considering the offender's antecedents was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether suppression of an earlier conviction and non-disclosure of material facts justified interference with the High Court's order.

Analysis: The respondent did not disclose an earlier conviction in another criminal case when seeking relief. Non-disclosure of a material fact relevant to the grant of probation amounted to suppression of vital information and conduct disapproved by the Court. Such suppression disentitled the respondent from relief and justified setting aside the impugned order.

Conclusion: The suppression of the earlier conviction justified interference and relief could not be sustained in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with costs imposed on the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Before extending probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the court must call for and consider the probation officer's report and must fairly assess the offender's antecedents; suppression of a material prior conviction vitiates the grant of relief.

---