# Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors v. The State of Maharashtra

- **Citation:** 2026 INSC 355
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2026-04-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1893 of 2026
- **Bench:** J.K. Maheshwari, Atul S. Chandurkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/milind-s-o-ashruba-dhanve-and-ors-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-39201
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

Whether the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of ss.3 and 4
of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and if so, to what extent;
whether the benefit of s.4 of the 1958 Act is available to an offender
who has been sentenced only with payment of fine, and not to
any term of imprisonment.
Headnotes†
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - ss.3, 4 - Power of court to
release certain offenders after admonition or on probation of
good conduct - Penal Code, 1860 - s.53 - Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023 - s.4 - Benefit of ss.3 and 4, 1958 Act -
Entitlement to - Appellants were convicted u/ss.323 and 324
r/w s.34, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of only Rs.500/- and
Rs.2000/- - If entitled to the benefit of ss.3 and 4 - RespondentState objected to extending the benefit contending that the
expression used 'release of the offender' in s.4 has some
significance and since, the Appellants were not sentenced
of imprisonment but were fined, therefore, passing an order
of release in this case is not possible:
Held: For an offender, the punishments may include the death,
imprisonment for life, imprisonment, forfeiture of property, fine and
community service in terms of the recent addition in BNS - Since
ss.3 and 4 govern acts committed by an offender in relation to
the specific punishments prescribed under the IPC, BNS and any
other law, these provisions must naturally extend to sentences
including fine - Therefore, any reference to 'punishment' in 1958
Act has to be construed as per enumeration contained in s.53
of IPC and s.4 of BNS and should undoubtedly include 'fine' as
well - Plea of the State that s.4 of 1958 Act is inapplicable in case
* Author
566
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
sentence consist solely of a fine, is devoid of merit - Benefit of
s.4 is available to an offender who has been sentenced only to
payment of fine - Furthermore, the expression 'release' used in
s.4 cannot mean release only from custody - It has to be read
as releasing from the obligation to serve sentence of payment of
fine - Therefore, 'release' as contained in s.4 of 1958 Act should
be read as to set the offender at liberty from receiving sentence,
even of fine only - Appellants were convicted u/s.323 and 324
of IPC and the allegations as proved relate to assault upon the
persons belonging to same locality - They were sentenced to pay
a fine of only Rs. 500/- u/s.323 and Rs. 2000/- u/s.324 of IPC,
no imprisonment was awarded - There is no subsequent or prior
involvement of the Appellants in commission of any offence, only
present criminal case has been registered against them - They
are employed with State Government - Appellants have not
committed an offence involving moral turpitude - Benefit of s.3
and s.4 extended to the Appellants - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s.360. [Paras 24-26, 40-43]
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - ss.3, 4, 12 - Power of court
to release certain offenders after admonition - Power of court
to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct -
Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction:
Held: Once the benefit either u/s.3 or s. 4 has been granted to an
offender, it would entail the benefit of removal of disqualification,
if any, attaching to the conviction - Thus, in case a person has
been released after admonition u/s.3 or on probation of good
conduct u/s.4, they shall not face a disqualification attaching to
such conviction - In the present case, since all the Appellants have
been extended the benefit u/ss.3 and 4, they shall not incur any
disqualification affecting their service career, if any, arising out of
the conviction, in terms of s.12. [Paras 18, 19]
Interpretation of Statutes - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 -
A beneficial legislation, to be interpreted in a purposive manner:
Held: 1958 Act is a beneficial legislation, therefore, keeping the
legislative intent in mind, its provisions ought to be interpreted in
a purposive manner - If two or more views are possible vis-à-vis
interpretation

## Text

_Characters 0–39,960 of 60,993. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39960 for what follows._

[2026] 4 S.C.R. 565 : 2026 INSC 355
Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors.
v.
The State of Maharashtra
(Criminal Appeal No. 1893 of 2026)
10 April 2026
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of ss.3 and 4
of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and if so, to what extent;
whether the benefit of s.4 of the 1958 Act is available to an offender
who has been sentenced only with payment of fine, and not to
any term of imprisonment.
Headnotes†
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - ss.3, 4 - Power of court to
release certain offenders after admonition or on probation of
good conduct - Penal Code, 1860 - s.53 - Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023 - s.4 - Benefit of ss.3 and 4, 1958 Act -
Entitlement to - Appellants were convicted u/ss.323 and 324
r/w s.34, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of only Rs.500/- and
Rs.2000/- - If entitled to the benefit of ss.3 and 4 - RespondentState objected to extending the benefit contending that the
expression used 'release of the offender' in s.4 has some
significance and since, the Appellants were not sentenced
of imprisonment but were fined, therefore, passing an order
of release in this case is not possible:
Held: For an offender, the punishments may include the death,
imprisonment for life, imprisonment, forfeiture of property, fine and
community service in terms of the recent addition in BNS - Since
ss.3 and 4 govern acts committed by an offender in relation to
the specific punishments prescribed under the IPC, BNS and any
other law, these provisions must naturally extend to sentences
including fine - Therefore, any reference to 'punishment' in 1958
Act has to be construed as per enumeration contained in s.53
of IPC and s.4 of BNS and should undoubtedly include 'fine' as
well - Plea of the State that s.4 of 1958 Act is inapplicable in case
* Author
566
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
sentence consist solely of a fine, is devoid of merit - Benefit of
s.4 is available to an offender who has been sentenced only to
payment of fine - Furthermore, the expression 'release' used in
s.4 cannot mean release only from custody - It has to be read
as releasing from the obligation to serve sentence of payment of
fine - Therefore, 'release' as contained in s.4 of 1958 Act should
be read as to set the offender at liberty from receiving sentence,
even of fine only - Appellants were convicted u/s.323 and 324
of IPC and the allegations as proved relate to assault upon the
persons belonging to same locality - They were sentenced to pay
a fine of only Rs. 500/- u/s.323 and Rs. 2000/- u/s.324 of IPC,
no imprisonment was awarded - There is no subsequent or prior
involvement of the Appellants in commission of any offence, only
present criminal case has been registered against them - They
are employed with State Government - Appellants have not
committed an offence involving moral turpitude - Benefit of s.3
and s.4 extended to the Appellants - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s.360. [Paras 24-26, 40-43]
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - ss.3, 4, 12 - Power of court
to release certain offenders after admonition - Power of court
to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct -
Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction:
Held: Once the benefit either u/s.3 or s. 4 has been granted to an
offender, it would entail the benefit of removal of disqualification,
if any, attaching to the conviction - Thus, in case a person has
been released after admonition u/s.3 or on probation of good
conduct u/s.4, they shall not face a disqualification attaching to
such conviction - In the present case, since all the Appellants have
been extended the benefit u/ss.3 and 4, they shall not incur any
disqualification affecting their service career, if any, arising out of
the conviction, in terms of s.12. [Paras 18, 19]
Interpretation of Statutes - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 -
A beneficial legislation, to be interpreted in a purposive manner:
Held: 1958 Act is a beneficial legislation, therefore, keeping the
legislative intent in mind, its provisions ought to be interpreted in
a purposive manner - If two or more views are possible vis-à-vis
interpretation of a beneficial legislation, it must be interpreted in
favour of beneficiaries - Object and purpose of the 1958 Act,
discussed. [Paras 11, 13]
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
567
Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - ss.3, 4 - Power of court to
release certain offenders after admonition or on probation of
good conduct - Relevant factors to be taken into consideration
while passing orders u/ss.3 and 4. [Paras 36, 39]
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - ss.3, 4 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.360 - Power of court to release certain
offenders after admonition - Power of court to release certain
offenders on probation of good conduct - Order to release
on probation of good conduct or after admonition - Different
framework of s.360, CrPC vis-à-vis ss.3,4, 1958 Act as regards
the scope and structure, discussed. [Paras 28, 29, 33]
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - ss.3, 4 - Benefit of, when
available to an offender, stated. [Paras 14-19]
Words and Phrases - Expression 'release' in s.4, Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 - Meaning. [Para 26]
Case Law Cited
Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab [1964] 7 SCR 676 : 1964 SCC
OnLine SC 40; Ved Prakash v. State of Haryana [1981] 1 SCR
1279 : (1981) 1 SCC 447; Mohd. Hasim v. State of Uttar Pradesh
[2016] 9 SCR 953 : (2017) 2 SCC 198; Bharat Singh v. New Delhi
Tuberculosis Centre [1986] 2 SCR 169 : (1986) 2 SCC 614; Kerala
Fishermen's Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy Food [1995] 3 SCR
785 : (1995) 4 SCC 341; Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar [2008] 7 SCR 673 : (2008) 9 SCC 527; Bombay Anand
Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corpn. [2009] 13 SCR 1139 : (2009)
9 SCC 61; Sanjay Dutt (A-117) v. State of Maharashtra [2013]
16 SCR 368 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 252; Lakhanlal v. State of
M.P. (2021) 6 SCC 100; State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh
Kuldip Singh Anand (2004) 7 SCC 659; Dalbir Singh v. State of
Haryana [2000] 3 SCR 1000 : (2000) 5 SCC 82 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Advanced Law Lexicon - referred to.
List of Acts
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Penal Code, 1860; Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
568
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Sections 12 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958; Release offenders after admonition; Release
offenders on probation of good conduct; Removal of disqualification
attaching to conviction; Released after admonition; Released on
probation of good conduct Offender sentenced only with payment
of fine; Offenders sentenced with 'fine only'; Offender sentenced to
pay fine; No imprisonment awarded; Benefit of Section 4 of 1958
Act; Offender sentenced only to payment of fine; Only payment of
fine; Offender not sentenced to any term of imprisonment; 'release';
'punishment'; 'fine'; Section 53 of IPC; Section 4 of BNS; Section
360, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Beneficial legislation;
Purposive interpretation; Reformative approach.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
1893 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRLA No. 506 of 2023.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Amol B. Karande, Vishal Jogdand, Ashutosh Srivastava,
Ms. Akshada, B. Lakshmi Pallesh, Rajiv Agnihotri.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Shrirang B. Varma, Vinayak Aren, Jatin Dhamija, Ms.
Aiswharya Nigam.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
Present appeal is against the final judgment and order dated
26.02.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
569
Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
Aurangabad (hereinafter, 'High Court'), in Criminal Appeal No. 506
of 2023. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence for the
charge of Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter, 'IPC'), as determined by the Special Judge
(POCSO), Beed. The Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court,
imposed sentences, whereby Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter,
'A-1, A-2 and A-3' respectively) were each directed to pay a fine
of Rs. 500/- under Section 323, with default stipulation of 15 days'
simple imprisonment; and a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 324,
with default stipulation of one-month simple imprisonment, both
read with Section 34 of IPC. Appellant No. 4 (hereinafter, 'A-4')
was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 323 read
with Section 34 of IPC, with a default stipulation of 15 days' simple
imprisonment. The present appeal has been preferred assailing the
aforesaid findings.
FACTS IN BRIEF
3.
It is the case of prosecution that the victim, a 17-year-old girl, was
at her home during Diwali vacation. On 02.11.2019, at around
8.30 A.M. while she was standing outside her house, the accused
persons approached her. A-1 grabbed her hand, pressurized her for
relationship and gave proposal of marriage since her father wasn't
agreeing. Upon which she screamed and her grandmother as well as
sister came out and confronted the Appellants. At that moment, A-2
assaulted the sister, and A-3 pushed the grandmother. Thereafter,
the victim informed about the incident to her father at his nearby
garage. At about 9:30 A.M, all five accused (including one accused
who was acquitted by the Trial Court) arrived in a white Sumo vehicle
and attacked the father of the victim. A-2 struck on the head by
iron tambi, A-1 hit on leg with an iron rod, A-3 beat with a wooden
stick, A-4 assaulted with fists and kicks, while co-accused Dayabai
instigated them. During the incident, ₹2,000 fell from the father's
pocket. Bystanders rescued him and took the family to the police
station. The injured father was referred to a Government Hospital.
An FIR of the incident was registered on 02.11.2019 as Crime No.
190/2019 under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 354-A, 504,
506 of IPC and sections 8 and 12 of POCSO, 2012. Learned Trial
Court acquitted accused Dayabai for all the charges while other
accused persons, who are Appellants before us, were acquitted for
all the charges except as specified in paragraph (2) above. Upon
570
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
filing appeal, the High Court vide the impugned order dismissed the
same, hence, the present appeal.
4.
In this Criminal Appeal, notice was issued vide order dated
17.05.2024, however, when it was listed on 11.12.2024, learned
counsel for the Appellants submitted that they do not wish to press
the appeal on merits and urged to consider benefit of Sections 3
and 4 read with Sections 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
(hereinafter, '1958 Act').
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
5.
Mr. Amol B. Karande, learned counsel for the Appellants, has
contended that present is a fit case to grant benefit of Sections 3
and 4 read with Section 12 of 1958 Act. In support, reliance was
placed on Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab1, submitting that 1958
Act recognizes the reformative theory of punishment and object
of the penal law is more to reform the individual offender than to
punish. It has also been said that it is the duty of the sentencing
court to be activist enough to collect such facts bearing in mind the
rehabilitative approach, as has been observed in Ved Prakash v.
State of Haryana2.
6.
In reference to the fact and looking at the nature of offences, i.e.,
voluntarily causing hurt and voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous
weapons, it is contended that the Appellants may be released after
admonition or on probation of good conduct. Placing reliance upon
the decision of this Court in Mohd. Hasim v. State of Uttar Pradesh3,
it has been argued that Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act vests
discretionary power on Court to release a convict on probation of
good conduct on bond with or without sureties, even at the appellate
or revisional stage. It is further argued that the word 'expedient' used
in Sections 3 and 4 ought to be construed in its widest amplitude
to mean what is apt, suitable, and appropriate to the end in view.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, releasing the
Appellants on a bond of good conduct would be entirely consistent
with the letter and the spirit of the enactment. As such Appellants
1
1964 SCC OnLine SC 40
2
(1981) 1 SCC 447
3
(2017) 2 SCC 198
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
571
Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
may be released after admonition or on probation on bond with or
without sureties as may be deemed fit.
7.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that
the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, as confirmed
up to the High Court vide impugned judgment does not warrant
interference. The benefit of the 1958 Act is being sought mainly on
the ground that it may cause prejudice in employment to A-1 and A-4
who are in government service, rather than on any genuine merits
warranting probation.
8.
It has further been contended with respect to applicability of Section
3 that the A-4, who has been sentenced under Section 323 IPC only
may be benefitted. A-1, A-2 and A-3, who stand convicted under
Section 324 IPC fall outside the scope of benefit under Section 3,
as claimed. It has been vehemently argued that the true import and
object of Section 4 is to spare an offender from incarceration and
shield them from the deleterious effects of jail life, postponing the
receiving of sentence for a period not exceeding three years; unlike
Section 3, which expunges the imprisonment itself. Since A-1, A-2
and A-3 have been sentenced only for payment of fine and not to
any term of imprisonment, the very premise underlying Section 4
is absent in this case. Therefore, it has been urged, the prayer for
probation qua A-1, A-2 and A-3 is wholly unjustified and liable to be
rejected at threshold.
ANALYSIS
9.
In light of the arguments advanced and, in the facts of the present
case, issues that fall for our consideration are - (i) Whether the
Appellants are entitled to the benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958
Act, and if so, to what extent?; (ii) Whether the benefit of Section 4
of the 1958 Act is available to an offender who has been sentenced
only with payment of fine, and not to any term of imprisonment?
10. Since the Appellants have pressed this appeal limited to the grant of
benefit under the 1958 Act, therefore, to understand the intent of the
provisions of the said Act and the extent to which it may be allowed
to an offender who requires to be punished, including by way of fine
only, both the issues are dealt with simultaneously and in reference
to the provisions of the 1958 Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter, 'CrPC'), the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
572
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2023 (hereinafter, 'BNSS'), the IPC and the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (hereinafter, 'BNS').
11. At the outset, it is required to be noted that 1958 Act is a beneficial
legislation, therefore, keeping the legislative intent in mind, its
provisions ought to be interpreted in a purposive manner. It is trite
law that if two or more views are possible vis-a-vis interpretation of a
beneficial legislation, it must be interpreted in favour of beneficiaries.4
The objects clause of the 1958 Act declares the act to provide for
the release of offenders on probation or after due admonition and
the matters connected therewith. While introducing the Probation
of Offenders Bill, 1957 to the Lok Sabha on 14.11.1957, the then
Minister of State for Home Affairs remarked as follows -
"On a number of occasions, the Inspector-General of
Prisons in the various States have met. From 1925 onwards
there were a number of meetings and the InspectorsGeneral who are in close touch with the life of the convict
behind the prison bars found that oftentimes the particular
rigour to which the convict has been subjected or the life
that he leads there produces certain results other than
those expected. The expected result would be that the
man must reform himself, and that after he comes out
of the jail, he ought to lead a reformed life, he ought to
return to the proper or social life to which every citizen
has to confine himself. But oftentimes on account of
the long period behind the prison bars, the man does
not improve; on the other hand, he shows certain sign
of deterioration or worse results. That was the reason
why it was considered necessary that the question of
prison reform or the question of the reform of the convict
or the prisoner ought to be considered not only from the
point of view of the administration as such, not only from
the point of view of its having a deterrent effect upon him,
but also from the point of view of improving this particular
man, namely the convict.
4
See, Bharat Singh v. New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, (1986) 2 SCC 614; Kerala Fishermen's Welfare
Fund Board v. Fancy Food, (1995) 4 SCC 341; Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9
SCC 527; Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corpn., (2009) 9 SCC 61
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
573
Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
The principle that is followed in this connection is
that a man becomes a criminal on account of certain
circumstances or on account of certain tendencies,
which are anti-social and which are criminal, so far
as he is concerned. So the way to reform him and
to bring him back to human standards is to find out
certain items of reform by means of which he would
become a good man, and after some time, he would
become a better man.
These are two standards that we have taken into account."
12. After introduction in the Lok Sabha, it was referred to the Joint
Committee on 18.11.1957. Similarly, Rajya Sabha also agreed to
said reference to the Joint Committee on 26.11.1957. The Joint
Committee prepared its report on 19.2.1958 and the bill was again
discussed in the Lok Sabha on 26.04.1958. In the opening statement,
the then Dy. Minister of Home Affairs reflected upon the objectives
of the act in following words -
".....Therefore we feel that if we have such good human
material inside the prison, we should give this human
material every opportunity to rehabilitate itself in
society without the stigma of conviction and prison
term........
......To avoid this stigma, we want to try out this most
progressive measure in the country and see that the men
and women who become offenders for the first time or
even offenders for the second or the third time, as we call
them hopeless, are given an opportunity........
......The meaning of probation is suspended sentence.
Suspended sentence means that he will be left in
society under the guidance and care of a probation
officer or of a surety or of such other agent who would
be able to look after him and assist him and see that
he behaves well and is able once again to become
what we call a good citizen........
.....We are only trying to rehabilitate those many hundreds
and hundreds of offenders who because of, may be,
socio-economic considerations or other stringencies, or
574
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
may be, their mental make-up, commit certain offences.
Therefore, we have certain sections of the Indian Penal
Code only in which probation would be permitted to be
granted by courts....."
13. From the above, it can safely be gathered that the object and
purpose of the 1958 Act is to rehabilitate offenders and make an
attempt to reintegrate them into the mainstream of the society as
reformed citizens, rather than to punish for their delinquent actions.
What weighed in the mind of the law makers was that crime is, more
often than not, a product of numerous socio-economic circumstances
and that punishment may in fact lead to further deterioration of
his character. In other words, the 1958 Act seeks to harmonize
deterrence and reformation while empowering the courts to release
the offenders after admonition or on probation of good conduct under
supervision of the probation officer. It saves the offenders from the
stigma of conviction as well as imprisonment and affords them an
opportunity to return to the social life with dignity. In light of the above
discussion, the 1958 Act requires purposive interpretation keeping
in mind its objectives.
14. Since the main argument of the Appellants is canvassed for the
benefit of 1958 Act, in particular Sections 3 and 4, we will deal with
the provisions empowering the Courts either to release the offender
after admonition or on probation of good conduct. To understand
the situations in which the benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958
Act can be made available to an offender, it is necessary to refer to
those provisions hereunder:
"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 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 so to do, then, notwithstanding
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
575
Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
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."
Upon reading of Section 3, it is apparent that benefit thereof can be
granted only when offender is found guilty of committing the offence
as specified therein or any offence punishable with not more than two
years or fine or both under IPC or any other law and such offender
does not have any antecedents of previous conviction. In the said
contingencies, if the Court is of the opinion that looking to the nature
of offence, circumstances and the character of offender, it is expedient
to do so, it may pass an order of release after admonition, instead
of sentencing or passing an order under Section 4.
15. Similarly, Section 4 deals with the cases of those offenders, who
can be released on probation of good conduct. For ready reference,
it is reproduced as thus:
"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,
576
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
if any, has a fixed place of abode or a regular occupation
in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or
in which the offender is likely to reside during the period
of 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 is made under this section, 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 require the offender
to comply with such conditions as may be specified in the
supervision order.
(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section
(3) shall require the offender, before releasing him, to
enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the
conditions of the supervision order and such additional
conditions with respect to residence, abstention from
intoxicants or any other matter as the court having regard
to the particular circumstances of the case may think 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."
16. A perusal of the above makes it clear that if a person is found guilty of
an offence which is not punishable with either death or imprisonment
for life and the Court, having regard to the circumstances of the case
which includes nature of the offence and the character of the offender,
is of the opinion that it is expedient to do so, notwithstanding any
other law for the time being in force, instead of sentencing at once
of any punishment for such offence, the accused may be released
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
577
Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
on furnishing the bond, with or without sureties. It is also prescribed
that the Court may direct him to appear and receive the sentence
during such period when called upon, which may not exceed three
years. In the meantime, such person has to keep peace and be of
good behaviour. It is clarified that such an order ought to be passed
by the Court only after recording satisfaction regarding place of stay
of the offender or his surety or about the regular occupation in the
place where the court exercises jurisdiction or at a place where the
offender may likely reside during period of bond. The Court should
also take into consideration the report of the probation officer while
passing such order, if such report is available. An order of supervision
can also be passed by the Court, if it is of the opinion that such an
order will be in the interest of the offender and of the public, directing
the offender to remain under the supervision of a probation officer
named in the order during period, which shall not be less than one
year. The condition, if any, imposed by the Court, is required to
be complied with by the offender, as prescribed in the supervision
order. The offender is required to enter into a bond, with or without
sureties, and to observe the conditions as contained hereinabove
and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention
from intoxicants or any other matter which the Court may think
fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a
commission of other offences by the offender. The conditions, as
imposed for supervision and circumstances as indicated in the order
has to be explained to the offender and a copy of such order has
to be furnished to each offender, sureties and the probation officer.
17. At this stage, it is necessary to make it clear that under Section 3,
a convict can be released by the Court after admonition only with
respect to offences as specified therein. On the other hand, while
exercising the power under Section 4, the Court may release the
offender on probation of good conduct with respect to the offences
as prescribed.
18. It is not out of place to specify that in context of the object and reasons
for which the 1958 Act was brought, powers have been conferred
upon the Court primarily under Sections 3 and 4. As contemplated
under Section 11, the Courts are competent to make such orders
even during appeal and revision. Further, once the benefit either
under Section 3 or Section 4 has been granted to such offender, it
would entail the benefit of removal of disqualification, if any, attaching
578
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to the conviction. Therefore, Section 12, in this regard, is relevant,
which is reproduced as thus:
"12. Removal of disqualification attaching to
conviction. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law, a person who has been released on probation
of good conduct under Section 4 or after admonition under
Section 3 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching
to a conviction of an offence under such law:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person
who, after his release, is sentenced to imprisonment for the
commission of the original offence or of any other offence."
19. On perusal, it is quite clear that in case a person has been released
after admonition under Section 3 or on probation of good conduct
under Section 4, they shall not face a disqualification attaching to
such conviction.
20. Learned counsel for the Respondents vociferously objected to
extending the benefit of 1958 Act to A-1, A-2 and A-3 who have
been convicted for the charge of Section 324 IPC, in addition to the
charge of Section 323 IPC. It is contended that in Section 4 of the
1958 Act, the expression used 'release of the offender' has some
significance and in the case at hand, the Appellants have not been
sentenced of imprisonment but were fined, therefore, passing an
order of release in this case is not possible.
21. The said argument was countered by the Appellants, referring to
Section 53 of IPC and Section 4 of BNS, wherein fine has been
included within the connotation 'punishment' along with other
categories of punishment including imprisonment. The applicability of
Section 4 of 1958 Act is with respect to the offences not punishable
with death or life imprisonment, therefore barring the sentence
of death and life imprisonment, in case the punishment, if any,
including the fine has been awarded, the release order can be
passed by the Court under Section 4 of 1958 Act even in case of
fine.
22. Having considered the contentions as advanced and to appreciate
them, it would be necessary to refer to Section 53 of IPC and
corresponding provisions of Section 4 of BNS. Both the Sections
are reproduced hereunder in tabular form for comparison -
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
579
Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
Section 53 of IPC
Section 4 of BNS
53. Punishments. - The
punishments to which offenders
are liable under the provisions of
this Code are -
First - Death;
Secondly - Imprisonment for life;
Thirdly - [Omitted by Act 26 of
1955, s. 117 and Sch.];
Fourthly - Imprisonment, which
is of two descriptions, namely: -
(1) Rigorous, that is, with hard
labour;
(2) Simple;
Fifthly - Forfeiture of property;
Sixthly - Fine.
4. Punishments. - The
punishments to which offenders
are liable under the provisions
of this Sanhita are -
(a) Death;
(b) Imprisonment for life;
(c) Imprisonment, which is of
two descriptions, namely:-
(1) Rigorous, that is, with hard
labour;
(2) Simple;
(d) Forfeiture of property;
(e) Fine;
(f) Community Service.
23. In view of the above, it is clear that Section 53 of IPC has been
adopted as it is in Section 4 of BNS while also adding another
punishment in nature of community service. This is also indicative
of the paradigm shift in the legislative intent from deterrence to
reformation which has been reaffirmed while prescribing the mode
of punishment in BNS.
24. In view of the above, it is a clear that for an offender, the punishments
may include the death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment
(rigorous with hard labour or simple), forfeiture of property, fine and
community service in terms of the recent addition in BNS. Since
Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act govern acts committed by an
offender in relation to the specific punishments prescribed under
the IPC, BNS and any other law, these provisions must naturally
extend to sentences including fine. Consequently, the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the State that Section 4 is
inapplicable in case sentence consist solely of a fine, is entirely
devoid of merit.
580
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
25. Therefore, any reference to 'punishment' in 1958 Act has to be
construed as per enumeration contained in Section 53 of IPC and
Section 4 of BNS and should undoubtedly include 'fine' as well. From
the above discussion, it is luculent that, the benefit of Section 4 of
the 1958 Act is available to an offender who has been sentenced
only to payment of fine.
26. During course of arguments, much emphasis was laid by the Counsel
for the State that Section 4 uses the expression 'release' in context of
'instead of sentencing' and thus, when the person is sentenced only
for fine and not for imprisonment, there is no occasion for the Court
to 'release' him, thereby making application of Section 4 of 1958 Act
impossible. In light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs,
the expression 'release' has to be read accordingly. In this context,
we are of the opinion that 'release' cannot mean release only from
custody. It has to be read as releasing from the obligation to serve
sentence of payment of fine. This view is further strengthened by
the meaning of the word 'release' as contained in Advanced Law
Lexicon5. It is defined, inter-alia, as 'to set at liberty'. Therefore,
'release' as contained in Section 4 of 1958 Act should be read as to
set the offender at liberty from receiving sentence, even of fine only.
27. In addition to the provisions as contained under the 1958 Act, the
CrPC also confers powers upon the Court to make an order of
release on probation of good conduct or after admonition as per
Section 3606. The said provision is reproduced as thus -
"360. Order to release on probation of good conduct
or after admonition. -
(1) When any person not under twenty-one years of age
is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or
with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or
when any person under twenty-one years of age or any
woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction
is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court
before which he is convicted, regard being had to the
5
P Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon, Pg. 4037 (3rd Edition, 2005, Wadhwa Nagpur)
6
Section 401 of BNSS is corresponding provision.
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
581
Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to
the circumstances in which the offence was committed,
that it is expedient that the offender should be released
on probation of good conduct, 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 where any first offender is convicted by a
Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered
by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that
the powers conferred by this section should be exercised,
he shall record his opinion to that effect, and submit the
proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, forwarding
the accused to, or taking bail for his appearance before,
such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the
manner provided by sub-section (2).
(2) Where proceedings are submitted to a Magistrate
of the first class as provided by sub-section (1), such
Magistrate may thereupon pass such sentence or make
such order as he might have passed or made if the case
had originally been heard by him, and, if he thinks further
inquiry or additional evidence on any point to be necessary,
he may make such inquiry or take such evidence himself
or direct such inquiry or evidence to be made or taken.
(3) In any case in which a person is convicted of theft,
theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating
or any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
punishable with not more than two years, imprisonment
or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous
conviction is proved against him, the Court before which
he is so convicted may, if it thinks fit, having regard to
the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental
condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the
offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the
offence was committed, instead of sentencing him to any
punishment, release him after due admonition.
582
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(4) An order under this section may be made by any
Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session
when exercising its powers of revision.
(5) When an order has been made under this section in
respect of any offender, the High Court or Court of Session
may, on appeal when there is a right of appeal to such
Court, or when exercising its powers of revision, set aside
such order, and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such
offender according to law: Provided that the High Court
or Court of Session shall not under this sub-section inflict
a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by
the Court by which the offender was convicted.
(6) The provisions of sections 121, 124 and 373 shall,
so far as may be, apply in the case of sureties offered in
pursuance of the provisions of this section.
(7) The Court, before directing the release of an offender
under sub-section (1), shall be satisfied that an offender
or his surety (if any) has a fixed place of abode or regular
occupation in the place for which the Court acts or in which
the offender is likely to live during the period named for
the observance of the conditions.
(8) If the Court which convicted the offender, or a Court
which could have dealt with the offender in respect of his
original offence, is satisfied that the offender has failed to
observe any of the conditions of his recognizance, it may
issue a warrant for his apprehension.
(9) An offender, when apprehended on any such warrant,
shall be brought forthwith before the Court issuing the
warrant, and such Court may either remand him in custody
until the case is heard or admit him to bail with a sufficient
surety conditioned on his appearing for sentence and such
Court may, after hearing the case, pass sentence.
(10) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or the
Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960) or any other law for the time
being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation
of youthful offenders."
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
583
Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
28. From reading of the above, it is apparent that Section 360 of the
CrPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the 1958 Act share a common thread
i.e., reformation but at the same time their framework differs in their
scope and structure. Section 360 of CrPC creates eligibility distinctions
based on age and gender.