Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

6 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SANTOSH SAHADEV KHAJNEKARversusTHE STATE OF GOA

2025 INSC 104126 August 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted under sections 323, 352, 504 of the IPC and section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 for allegedly hitting a child with a school bag. The High Court reduced the sentences, but the appellant challenged the conviction for child abuse and the applicability of probation. The Supreme Court ex

SANJABIJ TARIversusKISHORE S. BORCAR & ANR.

2025 INSC 115825 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sanjabij Tari, appealed against the High Court’s ex‑parte order acquitting Kishore S. Borcar (respondent No.1) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a bounced cheque of Rs.7.5 lakh. The central issue was whether the High Court could overturn the concurrent findings of the trial and sess

CHELLAMMAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2025 INSC 54022 April 2025Disposed off

The appellants, a mother‑in‑law and her son‑in‑law, were convicted under Section 498‑A of the IPC for cruelty to a woman and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine. They sought to replace the imprisonment with an enhanced fine, but the court held that fine cannot substitute imprisonment under Section 498‑A. The pr

SANJAY COLAROversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 68621 April 2025Disposed off

The appellant, Sanjay Colaro, was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC for causing a fatal road accident by rash driving. He was sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine, which he appealed through the criminal appellate hierarchy up to the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that, given the l

SUNITA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR

2024 INSC 44817 May 2024Dismissed

The case arose from a POCSO trial in which the Special Judge conducted the proceedings in extreme haste, denying the accused the opportunity to consult counsel, receive documents, and present a defence, and ultimately imposing a death sentence that was set aside by the Patna High Court and a de novo trial ordered. The

NAGARAJAN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2025 INSC 70314 May 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellants were convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PoFA) for selling adulterated curd and various food items, receiving six months' imprisonment and fines. They sought release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, arguing that Section 20AA of PoFA, which excluded probation,

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search