Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve & Orsv.State of Maharashtra

Legal Analysis: Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 INSC 355
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari (Division Bench)
Date of Decision: April 10, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal under Article 136 against concurrent conviction under Sections 323 and 324 IPC.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellants, convicted under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and sentenced only to fine (no imprisonment), sought benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The State objected, arguing that Section 4 of the 1958 Act applies only when imprisonment is awarded, not fine alone. The Supreme Court held that “punishment” under Section 53 IPC and Section 4 BNS includes fine; therefore, Section 4 of the 1958 Act is applicable even where the sentence is only fine. The Court granted probation to three appellants (Section 4) and admonition to one (Section 3), with supervision conditions, and clarified that such release removes disqualification attaching to conviction under Section 12 of the 1958 Act.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No.Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6843/2024 Bench Justice J.K. Maheshwari (Division Bench) Date of Decision April 10, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 355 Appeal From High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dated 26.02.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 506/2023

2. Legal Framework

Laws Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (hurt by dangerous weapon), 34 (common intention), 53 (punishments – includes fine).

• Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 4 (punishments – includes fine and community service).

• Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Sections 3 (release after admonition), 4 (release on probation of good conduct), 6 (special provision for persons under 21), 12 (removal of disqualification).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 360 (release on probation or after admonition).

Precedents Cited:

• Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab (1965) – Object of 1958 Act is reformation.

• Ved Prakash v. State of Haryana (1981) – Sentencing court must collect social background facts.

• Mohd. Hasim v. State of U.P. (2022) – Probation can be granted at appellate stage.

• Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra (2013) – 1958 Act and Section 360 CrPC have differences.

• Lakhanlal v. State of M.P. (2019) – Both provisions co-exist.

• Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) – Meaning of “expedient” in Section 4.

3. Relevant Facts

• Incident on 02.11.2019: Appellants (A-1 to A-4) assaulted the father of a 17-year-old girl with iron tambi, iron rod, wooden stick, and fists.

• Trial Court convicted A-1, A-2, A-3 under Sections 323 and 324 read with 34 IPC, and A-4 under Section 323 read with 34 IPC.

• Sentence: Fine only – Rs. 500/- (Section 323) and Rs. 2000/- (Section 324), with default imprisonment (not actually imposed).

• High Court affirmed conviction.

• Before Supreme Court, appellants did not challenge merits but sought benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

• A-1 and A-4 are government employees; no prior or subsequent criminal cases; no moral turpitude involved.

4. Issues

1. Whether the benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is available to an offender who has been sentenced only to payment of fine (and no imprisonment).

2. Whether A-1, A-2, A-3 (convicted under Section 324 IPC) can be granted benefit under Section 3 or Section 4 of the 1958 Act.

5. Ratio Decidendi

• Fine is “punishment” under Section 53 IPC and Section 4 BNS: The Court held that Section 53 IPC (and corresponding Section 4 BNS) enumerates fine as one of the punishments. Therefore, any reference to “punishment” in the 1958 Act includes fine. The State’s argument that Section 4 applies only when imprisonment is awarded was rejected (Para 24).

• Meaning of “release” in Section 4: The Court interpreted “release” as releasing the offender from the obligation to serve sentence, including payment of fine. It is not limited to release from custody (Para 26).

• Distinction between Section 3 and Section 4: Section 3 (admonition) applies only to offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years or fine only, and requires no previous conviction. Section 4 (probation) applies to all offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment, with discretion based on nature of offence and character of offender (Paras 14-16).

• Section 4 applicable even when sentence is fine only: The Court clarified that the power under Section 4 can be exercised “instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment” – this includes fine. The court may release the offender on bond of good conduct without requiring imprisonment (Para 25).

• Factors for granting probation: Age, antecedents, character, habits, economic conditions, occupation, fixed place of abode, familial responsibilities, gravity of offence, and probation officer’s report (Para 36-39).

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Clarification that fine-only sentences are covered under Section 4 of 1958 Act: This resolves a potential ambiguity. Prior to this judgment, some courts may have denied probation when only fine was imposed. The Supreme Court explicitly held that “release” under Section 4 includes release from fine obligation.

• Reaffirmation of reformative approach: The judgment reiterates that the 1958 Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at rehabilitating offenders and removing the stigma of conviction, especially for first-time offenders.

• Section 12 (removal of disqualification) applies to fine-only cases: The Court held that since the benefit under Section 4 extends to fine-only sentences, the protection under Section 12 (no disqualification attaching to conviction) also applies, safeguarding government employment.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

• Legislative intent from Parliamentary debates: The Court quoted the 1958 Bill debates to show that the Act seeks to reintegrate offenders into society, avoiding the deleterious effects of imprisonment and stigma (Paras 11-13).

• Interplay between Section 360 CrPC and 1958 Act: The Court noted divergent opinions (Sanjay Dutt vs. Lakhanlal) but did not resolve the conflict, as the case was decided under the 1958 Act alone. However, it observed that the 1958 Act provides a more elaborate supervisory mechanism (probation officer, supervision orders) and overrides Section 360 CrPC due to its non-obstante clause (Para 30-32).

• Meaning of “expedient”: Relying on Dalbir Singh, the Court held that “expedient” means apt, suitable, and appropriate to the end in view – i.e., reformation of the offender (Para 38).

• Application to facts: A-1, A-2, A-3 convicted under Section 324 (punishable up to 3 years) – not eligible for Section 3 (which requires imprisonment 2 years) but eligible for Section 4. A-4 convicted under Section 323 (punishable up to 1 year) – eligible for Section 3. The Court granted Section 4 benefit to A-1,2,3 with bond for one year and probation supervision; Section 3 benefit (admonition) to A-4 (Para 42-43).

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment provides a clear, purposive interpretation of the 1958 Act, aligning with its reformative object. It removes a technical hurdle that previously may have denied probation to persons sentenced only to fine – a common outcome in minor assault cases. The inclusion of fine within “punishment” for Section 4 is logically sound given Section 53 IPC.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not fully resolve the conflict between Section 360 CrPC and the 1958 Act, leaving that for a future larger bench. However, this was not necessary for the decision. The Court also did not discuss whether the appellants’ conduct (assault with iron rod/tambi) was too grave for probation, but noted the absence of moral turpitude, prior criminal record, and the fact that the lower courts already imposed only fine – indicating the offence was not treated as severe.

Practical impact: Government employees convicted of minor offences can now seek probation under Section 4 even if sentenced only to fine, and then claim removal of disqualification under Section 12 to protect their jobs. This is a significant practical benefit.

9. Final Outcome

Appeal disposed of. Conviction confirmed but benefit of 1958 Act granted:

• A-1, A-2, A-3 released on probation of good conduct under Section 4(1) for one year on bond with sureties, with probation officer supervision (quarterly reports).

• A-4 released after due admonition under Section 3.

• Fine already imposed shall be deposited within 4 weeks as compensation to victim.

• Disqualification attaching to conviction removed under Section 12.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

• By convicts sentenced only to fine: File an appeal or revision seeking benefit under Section 4 of the 1958 Act, citing this judgment to argue that fine is a “punishment” and “release” includes release from fine obligation.

• By government employees convicted of minor offences: Use this judgment to seek probation under Section 4, and then claim removal of disqualification under Section 12 to avoid adverse service consequences (dismissal, debarment).

• By trial courts: When sentencing for offences punishable with fine only or with imprisonment up to 7 years (Section 4 eligibility), consider probation even if no imprisonment is awarded – the court can “instead of sentencing” impose a bond of good conduct.

11.  Court Lines

“In view of the above, it is a clear that for an offender, the punishments may include the death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment… forfeiture of property, fine and community service… Consequently, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the State that Section 4 is inapplicable in case sentence consist solely of a fine, is entirely devoid of merit.” (Para 24)

“In this context, we are of the opinion that ‘release’ cannot mean release only from custody. It has to be read as releasing from the obligation to serve sentence of payment of fine.” (Para 26)

“The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him.” (Para 35, quoting Rattan Lal)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For the defence: If your client is convicted of a minor offence (punishable with imprisonment 7 years or fine only), immediately seek probation under Section 4 of the 1958 Act, even at appellate stage. Emphasise: (i) no prior conviction, (ii) stable employment/family, (iii) no moral turpitude, (iv) offence arose from sudden provocation or trivial issue. Obtain a probation officer’s report in your favour. Use this judgment to counter any objection that fine-only sentence cannot be probated.

For the prosecution: Oppose probation by showing: (i) gravity of offence (use of dangerous weapon, serious injury), (ii) previous criminal antecedents, (iii) lack of remorse, (iv) unfavourable probation report. Argue that “expedient” requires the court to consider the nature of the offence – if it involves moral turpitude or public safety concerns, probation should be denied.