NDLI: Lakhvir Singh Etc Vs. The State of Punjab & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Probation of Offenders Act 1958: Object of legislation
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Object of legislation – Held: To give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment – Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: s.6 – Appellants were convicted by trial court for offence under s.397 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years each – High Court dismissed the appeal against the conviction by trial court – Appellants filed special leave petition and annexed compromise deed arrived at between the complainant and the appellants in terms whereof the complainant had stated that he did not want to pursue any action against the appellants and has no objection to their release on bail on acquittal – Appellants have already served about 50% of their sentence while in custody – The prosecution however objected that the minimum sentence provided by the statute under s.397 IPC is seven years and the same cannot be reduced below that period – On this submission, the appellants-convicts sought benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act – Held: Appellants were below 21 years of age as on the date of offence – The benefit of probation under the Act is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence under s.397 of IPC, the offence in the present case – Appellants have not served out the minimum sentence of seven years though they have served about half the sentences – They were aged under 19 and 21 years of age as on the date of offence but not on the date of sentence – The redeeming feature in their case is that the person who suffered, appears to have forgiven them, possibly with the passage of time – No adverse report has been brought to notice against them about their conduct in jail – Fit case to extend benefit of probation to the appellants under the Act in view of the provisions of s.4 of the Act on completion of half the sentence – Appellants are released on probation of good conduct under s.4 of the Act on their completion of half the sentence and on their entering into a bond with two sureties each to ensure that they will maintain peace and good behaviour for the remaining part of their sentence, failing which they can be called upon to serve that part of the sentence – Penal Code, 1860 – s.397. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: s.4 – Essential feature of – Held: “notwithstanding” contained in s.4 permits, despite anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court to release a person on bond, with or without sureties, for a period of three years instead of sentencing him in order to ensure that he keeps peace and good behaviour – In this regard, under sub-section (2), before making any order under sub-section (1), the court is required to take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: s.6 – Determining factors while giving benefit under – Held: The relevant aspects while giving benefit under s.6 of the Act are: the nature of offence, the character of the offender, and the surrounding circumstances as recorded in the probation officer’s report. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: s.4 and s.6 – Distinction between – Held: s.4 is distinct from s.6 as it is discretionary in nature while s.6 provides that a court “must not” sentence a person under the age of 21 years to imprisonment unless sufficient reasons for the same are recorded, based on due consideration of the probation officer’s report. G Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: s.6 – Applicability of – Held: Appellants were under 21 years of age on the date of the offence and not on the date of conviction, s.6 would not come to their aid.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 30
Petitioner	Lakhvir Singh Etc
Respondent	The State Of Punjab & Anr.
SCR	[2021] 1 S.C.R. 269
Judgement Date	2021-01-19
Case Number	47

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Lakhvir Singh Etc Vs. The State of Punjab & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Harpal Singh and Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Punjab Etc. Etc.

Jatinder Pal Singh and Ors. Etc. Etc Vs. State of Punjab

Rattan Lal Vs. State of Punjab

Jagjit Singh and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Punjab and Another Etc. Etc

Abdul Qayum Vs. The State of Bihar

Gurmail Singh and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.

Saroj Rani and Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.

State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Etc. Etc.

Ishardas Vs. State of Punjab

Lakhvir Singh Etc Vs. The State of Punjab & Anr.

Lakhvir Singh Etc Vs. The State of Punjab & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Harpal Singh and Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Punjab Etc. Etc.

Jatinder Pal Singh and Ors. Etc. Etc Vs. State of Punjab

Rattan Lal Vs. State of Punjab

Jagjit Singh and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Punjab and Another Etc. Etc

Abdul Qayum Vs. The State of Bihar

Gurmail Singh and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.

Saroj Rani and Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.

State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Etc. Etc.

Ishardas Vs. State of Punjab

Lakhvir Singh Etc Vs. The State of Punjab & Anr.