Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants, who were below 21 years of age on the date of the offence and convicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, could be extended the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 despite the prescribed mandatory minimum sentence.
Analysis: The special scheme of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is reformative and seeks to avoid unnecessary incarceration of eligible offenders. Section 6 is a mandatory protective provision for offenders under 21 years of age, but it operates on the age at the date of offence and does not assist the appellants on the facts as discussed. The controlling question was whether Section 4, which is discretionary and contains a non obstante clause, stands excluded by the minimum sentence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Reading the Act as a whole, including its saving clause and the earlier authorities relied upon, the mandatory minimum under Section 397 does not bar the court from invoking Section 4 where the case is otherwise fit for probation.
Conclusion: The appellants were held entitled to the benefit of probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on completion of half the sentence and on furnishing the required bonds and sureties.