Grant of probation is valid where minor offences are committed and good conduct is maintained post-conviction.

The applicant (complainant) filed a revision application challenging the judgment dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2013

Originally, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kutiyana, convicted Respondent No. 2 (Nathubhai Rathod) under Section 323 IPC and Respondent No. 3 (Shantilal Rathod) under Section 324 IPC, sentencing them to six months and two months of simple imprisonment respectively

On appeal, the Sessions Judge upheld the convictions but modified the sentence by extending the benefit of probation for one year

The applicant sought to quash this grant of probation, alleging the respondents were habitual offenders

1. Whether the learned Sessions Judge committed an error of law or fact in extending the benefit of probation to the respondents under the facts and circumstances of the case

2. Whether the existence of prior "chapter cases" (preventive proceedings) disqualifies a convict from receiving the benefit of probation

The court applied the reformative principles of the Probation of Offenders Act through Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS)

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents *Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar* (2000) 9 SCC 245 and *Chellammal & Anr. v. State* (2025 INSC 540), which emphasize the court's duty to consider probation as a discretionary reformative tool

The court also distinguished between serious criminal offenses and "chapter cases" (preventive security proceedings) under the CrPC

The Court reasoned that the primary object of probation is reformative, and it is a judicial duty to evaluate if a case warrants such relief based on the circumstances

The Court found that while the applicant claimed the respondents were habitual offenders, the only evidence provided were two "chapter cases" from 2009 and 2011

The Court determined these were not "serious offences" that would bar the exercise of discretion for probation

Furthermore, the Court noted that the revision application was filed with a 10-month delay and that during the pendency of the revision (from 2017 to 2026), no breach of peace or untoward incidents involving the respondents were reported

Consequently, the respondents had successfully complied with the conditions of their probation, rendering the challenge moot

The Court confirmed the judgment and order dated 27.10.2016, finding no grounds for interference

The Revision Application was dismissed, and the rule was discharged