CHELLAMMAL AND ANOTHER versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2306 · Decided: 22-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2306 : 2025 INSC 540
Chellammal and Another 
v. 
State Represented by the Inspector of Police
(Criminal Appeal No. 2065 of 2025) 
22 April 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellants could be granted the benefit of probation 
either u/s.360(1) of CrPC or u/s.4 of the Probation of Offenders 
Act, 1958; whether the High Court was justified in not extending 
the benefit of probation to the appellants.
Headnotes†
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – sub-section (1) of s.4 – 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.360 – Appellants were 
jointly tried for commission of offences u/ss.304-B and 498-A  
of IPC – The Sessions Court acquitted the appellants of 
charge u/s.304-B but convicted them u/s.498-A of IPC – The 
High Court maintained the conviction of appellants u/s.498-A 
of IPC – Plea by the appellants to set aside the sentence of 
imprisonment by enhancing the fine – Interference with:
Held: No interference with the conviction u/s.498-A of IPC – Fine is 
not an alternative to imprisonment – Considering grant of probation – 
An offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation as a matter 
of right but it is held that, unless applicability is excluded, in a case 
where the circumstances stated in s.4(1) of the Probation Act are 
attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its consideration 
release of the offender on probation; on the contrary, a mandatory 
duty is cast upon the court to consider whether the case before 
it warrants releasing the offender upon fulfilment of the stated 
circumstances – The question of grant of probation could be decided 
either way – In the event, the court in its discretion decides to 
extend the benefit of probation, it may upon considering the report 
of the probation officer impose such conditions as deemed just and 
proper – However, if the answer be in the negative, it would only be 
just and proper for the court to record the reasons therefor – In the 
instant case, the Sessions Judge and the High Court by omitting 
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
2307
Chellammal and Another v.  
State Represented by the Inspector of Police
to consider whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of 
probation, occasioned a failure of justice – The matter remitted to 
the High Court for limited consideration of the question of grant of 
probation to the appellants upon obtaining a report of the relevant 
probation officer. [Paras 6, 9, 28, 31]
Probation of Offender Act, 1958 – sub-section (1) of s.4 – Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.360 – Comparison of:
Held: On a comparative study of s.360, Cr.PC and sub-section (1) 
of s.4 of the Probation Act, what is revealed is that the latter is 
wider and expansive in its coverage than the former – Inter alia, 
while s.360 permits release of an offender, more twenty-one years 
old, on probation when he is sentenced to imprisonment for less 
than seven years or fine, s.4 of the Probation Act enables a court 
to exercise its discretion in any case where the offender is found 
to have committed an offence such that he is punishable with 
any sentence other than death or life imprisonment – Additionally, 
the non-obstante clause in sub-section gives overriding effect to 
sub-section (1) of s.4 over any other law for the time being in 
force – Also, s.361, Cr.PC itself, being a subsequent legislation, 
engrafts a provision that in any case where the court could have 
dealt with an accused under the provisions of the Probation Act 
but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special 
reasons therefor. [Para 26]
Case Law Cited
Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh [1988] Supp. 2 SCR 571 : (1988) 4 
SCC 551; Gulzar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007] 1 SCR 81 : 
(2007) 1 SCC 619; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Man Singh [2019] 
13 SCR 570 : (2019) 10 SCC 161 – relied on.
State v. A. Parthiban [2006] Supp. 7 SCR 35 : (2006) 11 SCC 
473; Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar (2000) 9 SCC 245; 
Ishar Das v. State of Punjab [1972] 3 SCR 312 : (1973) 2 SCC 
65; Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana [2000] 3 SCR 1000 : (2000) 
5 SCC 82; Jagdev Singh and Other v. State of Punjab (1974) 
3 SCC 412; Rajbir v. State of Haryana (1985) Supp. SCC 272; 
MCD v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2005] 3 SCR 1010 : (2005) 4 SCC 
605; Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB Police v. Sanjay Binjola 
[2001] 3 SCR 367 : (2001) 5 SCC 317; Lakhvir Singh v. State 
of Punjab, [2021] 1 SCR 269 : (2021) 2 SCC 763 – referred to.
2308
[2025] 4

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.