Courts granting probation must consider whether default imprisonment for unpaid fines defeats probation’s purpose.

The appellant was convicted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The trial court released him on probation for two years on a surety bond of ₹25,000, but also ordered him to pay a fine equal to three times the electricity-theft bill within 30 days, with one year’s simple imprisonment in default.

In appeal under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellant did not challenge the conviction on merits; he challenged the fine and default-imprisonment order as inconsistent with the benefit of probation.

He relied on Ishar Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1295.

1. Whether an order releasing the appellant on probation could be accompanied by a fine carrying imprisonment in default, consistently with the principles governing probation.

2. Whether the trial court’s order should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration of the sentence in light of Ishar Das.

Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the procedural basis for the appeal.

The appellant was convicted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Relying on Ishar Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1295, the Court noted the principle that where the object of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is to avoid imprisonment, that object may be frustrated by imposing a fine whose non-payment necessarily results in imprisonment.

The Court directed the trial court to reconsider the matter in light of that decision, without itself determining the appropriate sentence.

The appellant accepted the conviction and the grant of probation, but argued that the fine’s default-imprisonment consequence undermined the purpose of probation.

Because the trial court’s attention had not been drawn to Ishar Das when it considered sentence, the High Court considered fresh consideration necessary.

It did not decide whether the fine or default term was impermissible; instead, it remitted the matter for the trial court to assess afresh, after hearing both sides and considering the Supreme Court precedent.

It expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case, and directed the Registry to return the record and proceedings to the trial court.