Reformative approach warrants benefit of probation for first-time offender with good conduct and long-pending litigation.

The applicant was convicted by the 11th Judicial Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, in Criminal Case No. 12044/2009 for an offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

He was sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.

The applicant appealed this decision in Criminal Appeal No. 65/2010, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction on 31.07.2008.

The applicant subsequently filed the present revision application, contending that he was under 20 years of age at the time of the incident, has no subsequent criminal record over the last 16 years, and is currently a self-employed businessman.

1. Whether there is any patent illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts that warrants interference under the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act based on his conduct and the reformative theory of penology.

Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), regarding the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, noting that it should not act as an appellate court to re-appreciate evidence unless there is a "manifest error of law" or "miscarriage of justice".

Reliance was placed on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 regarding these limits.

Section 360(1) of the CrPC and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which emphasizes a reformative approach and the rehabilitation of offenders.

The court found no "glaring defect" or perversity in the findings of the Sessions Judge regarding the conviction under Section 338 IPC.

The court focused on the "reformative approach" of penology, observing that the applicant was a young offender at the time of the incident, 16 years have passed without further criminal involvement, and a report from the Chief Probation Officer, Surat (dated 01.04.2026), confirmed the applicant’s good conduct and recommended probation.

The court reasoned that in the interest of social justice and rehabilitation, a reformative approach was preferable to harsh imprisonment, provided the interest of the victim was also addressed through compensation.

The court ordered the applicant to deposit Rs. 5,000 as compensation to be paid to the injured complainant and the revision application was disposed of with a direction to submit the probation bond to the trial court within 15 days.