Minimum sentence prescriptions under OTT Rules do not bar extension of Probation of Offenders Act benefits.

In October 2008, the Petitioner and co-accused were apprehended in the Sankhirpada Reserve Forest for illegally felling and transporting Acacia and Sal wood using a trolley rickshaw

The Trial Court initially convicted the Petitioner under Rule 21 of the Odisha Timber and Forest Produces Transit Rules (OTT Rules), 1980, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment (RI)

Following a remand by the Appellate Court for resentencing, the Trial Court enhanced the sentence on 03.02.2022 to three years RI and a fine of ₹5,000

The Appellate Court affirmed this conviction and sentence on 05.01.2026, explicitly ruling that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (P.O. Act) did not apply because the offence involved a prescribed minimum sentence and occurred between sunset and sunrise

The Petitioner subsequently filed this revision challenging only the denial of probation

1. Whether the statutory benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be extended to an offender convicted under Rule 21 of the OTT Rules, 1980, despite the prescription of a minimum sentence.

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which empowers courts to release certain offenders on probation for good conduct, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, provided the offence is not punishable by death or life imprisonment

Supreme Court’s precedent in Chellammal and anr. V. State represented by the Inspector of Police (2025 SCC OnLine SC 870), which established detailed guidelines for the broad application of the P.O. Act

Procedural transition from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the recovery of fines

The Court observed that the primary reason the lower courts denied probation was the belief that the "minimum sentence" requirement in the OTT Rules acted as a bar to the P.O. Act

The High Court determined that on a plain reading of Section 4 of the P.O. Act, there is no such embargo

It reasoned that since the offense committed by the Petitioner does not fall under the statutory disqualifications (death or life imprisonment sentences), the court retains the discretion to grant probation

Considering the timeline of the case—specifically that the incident occurred in 2008 (18 years prior to judgment) and a co-accused had since died—the court found it "expedient" and in the interest of justice to apply the remedial principles of the P.O. Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Chellammal

The Court modified the sentence, directing that the Petitioner be released on probation of good conduct subject to conditions settled by the Trial Court and ordered the Petitioner to pay ₹5,000 as compensation within six weeks under Section 5 of the P.O. Act, failing which it shall be recovered as a fine under Section 461/462 of the BNSS 2023