Grant of probation is the rule; denial requires special reasons demonstrating the convict is beyond reformation.

The petitioner (the de facto complainant) challenged the judgment dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned appellate court

In the original trial arising from FIR No. 42/2009, Respondent No. 2 was convicted under Section 420 IPC but acquitted under Sections 468/471 IPC

The Trial Magistrate sentenced Respondent No. 2 to three years of simple imprisonment and ordered compensation of Rs. 6,50,000 to be paid to the petitioner

On appeal, the Court of Sessions upheld the conviction but modified the sentence by granting Respondent No. 2 the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, while maintaining the compensation order

The petitioner sought to set aside the grant of probation and reinstate the prison sentence, despite admitting that the awarded compensation had already been paid

1. Whether the appellate court acted within its jurisdiction by modifying the sentence to grant probation under the Probation of Offenders Act

2. Whether the Trial Court fulfilled the mandatory requirement of recording "special reasons" for denying the benefit of probation to the convict

The court primary applied Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 397 CrPC] regarding the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction

It further relied on Section 402 BNSS [formerly Section 361 CrPC], which mandates that a court must record "special reasons" for denying the benefit of probation to an eligible offender under the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 401 BNSS [formerly Section 360 CrPC]

The court emphasized the reformative principle that in specified offences, the grant of probation is the rule, while denial is an exception requiring proof that the convict is beyond reformation or a danger to society

The High Court observed that the Trial Magistrate failed to provide "special reasons" as required by Section 402 BNSS for refusing probation

The reasons cited by the trial court—pecuniary loss, litigation expenses, and the duration of the trial—were deemed logically disconnected from the reformative approach and insufficient to meet the statutory threshold of "special reasons"

Conversely, the High Court found the appellate court's reasoning sound, as it considered relevant factors: the convict’s advanced age (approximately 67 years), the 15-year duration of the trial, the lack of prior forgery convictions, and the necessity of maintaining harmony between the parties who were neighbors in the same village

The court noted that the revisional power is restricted and cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction to re-evaluate the merits unless there is a patent illegality

It affirmed that the trial court’s failure to record special reasons justified the appellate intervention

The Court dismissed the revision petition as frivolous and devoid of merit, thereby upholding the grant of probation to Respondent No. 2