MILIND S/O ASHRUBA DHANVE AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2026] 4 S.C.R. 565 · Decided: 10-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 – Respondent-
State 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 Ma

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