Court holds mere financial incapacity cannot justify withdrawal of probation; distinguishes between compensation to victims and prosecution costs under Probation of Offenders Act
In a significant judgment delivered on September 28, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Mr. Farjand Ali, restored the benefit of probation to Sanjay alias Sethi, who had been convicted for multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code but was initially released on probation. The appellate court set aside the trial court's subsequent order which had withdrawn probation and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment solely because of his failure to deposit Rs. 10,000/- towards prosecution expenses as directed under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The case arose from a conviction dated May 2, 2026, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh, where Sanjay and four co-accused were found guilty under Sections 148, 452, 341, 323/149, 325/149, and 427 IPC. Recognizing mitigating factors such as the accused's age and antecedents, the trial court exercised its discretion under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to release them on probation of good conduct, subject to furnishing bonds and sureties. Additionally, under Section 5 of the Act, the court directed payment of Rs. 50,000/- collectively: Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the wife of the injured, Rs. 10,000/- to another injured party, and Rs. 10,000/- towards prosecution expenses. Sanjay was responsible for depositing Rs. 10,000/- for prosecution costs.
When Sanjay failed to pay this amount, the trial court interpreted the non-payment as a breach of probation conditions and revoked the benefit, imposing a substantive sentence and leading to his incarceration. Sanjay challenged this decision in the High Court, not disputing his conviction but contesting the withdrawal of probation on grounds of his financial incapacity to pay.
Justice Ali's ruling carefully analyzed the statutory framework of the Probation of Offenders Act. It emphasized that while Section 4 authorizes courts to release offenders on probation based on suitability for reform, Section 5 empowers courts to order payment of compensation or costs but does not mandate imprisonment for non-payment. Instead, Section 5(2) provides that such amounts may be recovered as a fine. Section 9 outlines consequences for breach of probation conditions but does not equate failure to pay prosecution costs with deliberate violation warranting imprisonment.
The court held that there is a clear distinction between wilful breach of probation conditions and inability to comply with monetary directions. In the absence of evidence showing deliberate default or misuse of liberty, incarceration for mere financial inability is unjustifiable. Furthermore, the court noted the differentiation between compensation payable to victims and prosecution expenses; dispensing with Sanjay's liability for the prosecution costs did not affect the compensation awarded to victims.
Importantly, the court observed that Sanjay had not misused the freedom granted by probation, had not committed any further offences, and had complied with other conditions. It found the incarceration solely due to monetary default to be an unsustainable consequence. The High Court accordingly set aside the trial court's order withdrawing probation and ordered Sanjay's immediate release, subject to furnishing the original bond and surety.
This ruling reinforces the reformative spirit of the Probation of Offenders Act by ensuring that financial incapacity does not negate judicial discretion to grant probation. It cautions courts against equating non-payment of prosecution expenses with deliberate breach, thereby safeguarding the liberty of impoverished offenders fit for reform.
Bottom Line:
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Mere financial inability of convict to deposit amount directed under Section 5 towards prosecution expenses cannot, by itself, justify withdrawal of benefit of probation already granted under Section 4 - Non-payment under Section 5 is recoverable as fine and cannot be treated as deliberate breach of probation conditions in absence of material showing wilful default - Conviction maintained, probation restored and direction to deposit remaining prosecution expenses dispensed with.
Statutory provision(s): Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Sections 4, 5, 9; Indian Penal Code Sections 148, 452, 341, 323/149, 325/149, 427
Sanjay Alias Sethi v. State Of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2997584
