Prescription Of Minimum Sentence Does Not Bar Probation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Relief To Arms Act Convicts
The Court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentence after considering that the appellants were first-time offenders, had no subsequent criminal case and had faced prolonged proceedings.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the prescription of a minimum sentence for an offence does not, by itself, bar a court from granting probation.
The High Court extended the benefit to two appellants convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, while affirming their convictions.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment convicting the appellants under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing them to one year of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The appellants confined the appeal to the quantum of sentence.
A Bench of Justice Surya Partap Singh, rejecting the State's objection to probation, observed: “The learned counsel for the respondent/State has argued that the offence committed by the appellants, being an offence punishable with minimum sentence of seven years, the benefit of probation cannot be accorded. However, in my opinion, the abovementioned argument does not appear to be in consonance with law”.
The Bench added: “In the case of ‘Lakhvir Singh etc. V/s The State of Punjab & Anr.’ AIR 2021 SC 555, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the benefit of probation to an accused, who was convicted for the offence under Section 397 IPC, for which also, the minimum sentence has been prescribed.”
Advocate Arvind Kashyap appeared for the appellants. Additional Advocate General Deepali Verma represented the State of Haryana.
Background
The prosecution case arose from information that several armed persons had assembled in an agricultural area to prepare for a dacoity. The police formed raiding parties, apprehended those allegedly present and claimed to have recovered weapons from them.
The appellants were convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, while their co-accused were acquitted. Each was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹500.
Before the High Court, the appellants submitted that the incident had occurred more than 23½ years earlier, that they had endured prolonged litigation and that they had no other criminal case. They sought probation or admonition.
The State argued that the offence was serious and carried a prescribed minimum sentence, and that the one-year term was already lenient.
Court's Observations
Convictions Under Arms Act Affirmed
Although the appellants no longer challenged their conviction, the Court examined the record and found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish their guilt.
The Court held: “A perusal of trial Court record shows that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was thoroughly consistent, and good enough to bring home guilt of the appellant, for which they were charge-sheeted. Thus, it is hereby held that there is no scope for interference or indulgence in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, with regard to conviction of appellants, for the offence under Section 25 of Arms Act.”
The appeal was therefore dismissed insofar as it challenged the judgment of conviction.
Probation Requires Consideration Of Reformative Object
The Court referred to Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar (1972), in which the Supreme Court explained the reformative object of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Quoting the decision, the Court recorded: “Modern criminal jurisprudence recognises that no one is a born criminal and that a good many crimes are the product of socioeconomic milieu. Although not much can be done for hardened criminals, considerable stress has been laid on bringing about reform of young offenders not guilty of very serious offences and of preventing their association with hardened criminals. The Act gives statutory recognition to the above objective.”
The Court also relied on Chellammal v. State (2025). The Supreme Court had explained that probation was not an entitlement, but courts must consider it where the statutory conditions were attracted and its application had not been excluded.
The Supreme Court had stated: “Summing up the legal position, it can be said that while an offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation as a matter of right but having noticed the object that the statutory provisions seek to achieve by grant of probation and the several decisions of this Court on the point of applicability of Section 4 of the Probation Act, we hold that, unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act are attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its consideration release of the offender upon fulfillment of the stated circumstances. The question of grant of probation could be decided either way.”
Minimum Sentence Did Not Exclude Probation
Apart from Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2021), the Court referred to Amit Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2024). It noted that probation had been granted in that case to a person convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and that the Supreme Court had affirmed the relief.
The Court also considered the age of the incident, the prolonged proceedings, the appellants' status as first-time offenders and the absence of any subsequent prosecution.
It observed: “Following the precedents discussed above, and taking into consideration the abovementioned factors, it is hereby observed that the ends of justice would be better served, if the benefit of probation is accorded to the appellants and they are released on probation of good conduct. In my considered opinion, in the given fact situation, instead of awarding sentence to undergo imprisonment for the period fixed by the learned trial Court, it shall be more appropriate that the appellants are given the benefit of probation of good behaviour, mandated under Section-360 of CrPC.”
Conclusion
The High Court affirmed the convictions but partly allowed the appeal on sentence. It directed the appellants' release on probation for one year upon furnishing the requisite bonds and undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour.
The Court clarified that a breach of the probation conditions would expose the appellants to the sentence whenever they were called upon to undergo it. It also disposed of all pending applications.
Cause Title: Vikram and Another v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:198589)