[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Ajay Raj Shetty vs Director on 1 May, 2025
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.823 OF 2025
WITH
I.A. NO.108501 OF 2025
(Application for Modification)
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2036 OF 2025
AJAY RAJ SHETTY ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR AND ANR. ...RESPONDENTS
R1: DIRECTOR
R2: M/S ELECTRIEX (I) LTD.
O R D E R
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH & PRASHANT KUMAR
MISHRA, JJ.
Heard learned senior counsel for the
applicant-appellant (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘applicant’) as also learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and
for respondent no.2.
PREMISE:
Signature Not Verified
M.A. NO.823/2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2036/2025
Digitally signed by
RAVI ARORA
Date: 2025.05.071
17:45:06 IST
Reason:
2. The underlying Criminal Appeal was
dismissed by way of the detailed Final
Judgment and Order1 dated 17.04.2025,
upholding the conviction and sentence, by
which an amount of Rs.8,26,696/- was to be
paid and the applicant was to suffer six
months’ incarceration.
3. By way of the instant Miscellaneous
Application preferred on behalf of the
applicant, it is urged that,
inadvertently, the plea for release of the
applicant under the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Act’) could not be pressed before the
Court, when submissions were addressed.
Modification, therefore, of the Final
Judgment and Order is prayed for.
SUBMISSIONS:
4. It was submitted by Mr Siddharth Dave,
learned senior counsel, that the applicant
is not a criminal, much less a hardened
criminal, has no criminal antecedents and
in a purely money dispute, where he has
already paid the amount in question, even
if belatedly, having two young children
1
2025 INSC 500 | 2025 SCC OnLine SC 810.
M.A. NO.823/2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2036/2025
2
and a wife, the Court may consider his
release under the Act. Mr. Dave further
relied on the decision of a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.2065 of 2025 (Chellammal v State
Represented by the Inspector of Police)
dated 22.04.2025, reported as 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 870.
5. Though learned counsel for both
respondents have appeared, on this issue,
learned counsel, in unison, very fairly
submitted that it is for this Court to
take a view thereon.
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION:
6. In Chellammal (supra), it was stated
thus:
‘28. Summing up the legal position,
it can be said that while an
offender cannot seek an order for
grant of probation as a matter of
right but having noticed the object
that the statutory provisions seek
to achieve by grant of probation and
the several decisions of this Court
on the point of applicability of
Section 4 of the Probation Act, we
hold that, unless applicability isM.A. NO.823/2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2036/2025
3
excluded, in a case where the
circumstances stated in subsection
(1) of Section 4 of the Probation
Act are attracted, the court has no
discretion to omit from its
consideration release of the
offender on probation; on the
contrary, a mandatory duty is cast
upon the court to consider whether
the case before it warrants
releasing the offender upon
fulfilment of the stated
circumstances. The question of grant
of probation could be decided either
way. In the event, the court in its
discretion decides to extend the
benefit of probation, it may upon
considering the report of the
probation officer impose such
conditions as deemed just and
proper. However, if the answer be in
the negative, it would only be just
and proper for the court to record
the reasons therefor.’
(emphasis supplied)
7. In Chellammal (supra), reference has
been made to Hari Singh v Sukhbir Singh,
(1981) 4 SCC 551. The relevant passage
from Hari Singh (supra) reads as under:
‘8. The question next to be
considered is whether the accused
are entitled to the benefit ofM.A. NO.823/2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2036/2025
4
probation of good conduct? We gave
our anxious consideration to the
contentions urged by counsel. We are
of opinion that the High Court has
not committed any error in this
regard also. Many offenders are not
dangerous criminals but are weak
characters or who have surrendered
to temptation or provocation. In
placing such type of offenders, on
probation, the court encourages
their own sense of responsibility
for their future and protects them
from the stigma and possible
contamination of prison. In this
case, the High Court has observed
that there was no previous history
of enmity between the parties and
the occurrence was an outcome of a
sudden flare up. These are not shown
to be incorrect. We have already
said that the accused had no
intention to commit murder of any
person. Therefore, the extension of
benefit of the beneficial
legislation applicable to first
offenders cannot be said to be
inappropriate.’
(emphasis supplied)
8. We are of the opinion that the
relevant circumstances peculiar to the
applicant ought to have been brought to
the notice of the Court earlier. Be that
M.A. NO.823/2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2036/2025
5
as it may, upon a conspectus of the
aforesaid, we are inclined to accede to
the applicant’s prayer. Accordingly, Paras
26A and 26B be read into between Paras 26
and 27 of the Final Judgment and Order
dated 17.04.2025 in Criminal Appeal
No.2036 of 2025, as under:
‘26A. However, having regard to the
circumstances peculiar to the
Appellant viz. of him being a first-
time offender, having no criminal
antecedents and having paid the
amount(s) in question albeit
belatedly, we direct that instead of
undergoing the sentence of
imprisonment for six months as
awarded by the Courts below and
affirmed vide Para 26 above, the
Appellant be released under the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
26B. The Appellant is released on
probation upon entering into a bond
furnishing a surety of Rs.50,000
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) and shall
keep the peace and be of good
behaviour for the next three years.
Any violation of the aforesaid terms
would entail forfeiture of the
surety amount and revival of the
sentence awarded. The Appellant’s
conviction has not been interfered
with and only the sentence isM.A. NO.823/2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2036/2025
6
substituted, as provided above.’
9. In Chellammal (supra), it was also
stated:
‘30. We are conscious that in MCD
(supra)2, since followed in State of
Madhya Pradesh v Man Singh3, this
Court has held that the report of
the probation officer referred to in
sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the
Probation Act is a condition
precedent and, therefore, must be
complied with by the trial courts
and the high courts. Importantly, it
has also been held that the courts
may not be bound by such report. In
such view of the matter, we need to
make appropriate directions.’
(emphasis supplied)
10. All the same, this Court is not bound
to call for a Report from the Probation
Officer, and the same is dispensed with,
in the interest of justice.
11. At Paras 4 and 5 of I.A.
No.108501/2025, blame has been attributed
to erstwhile learned counsel for the
applicant in the Criminal Appeal. We
deprecate such averments, while reminding
2
(2005) 4 SCC 605.
3
(2019) 10 SCC 161.
M.A. NO.823/2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2036/2025
7
the applicant that we would be well within
our province to refuse him relief ‘for the
reason that the appellant did not raise
such plea before the three courts below
though it was available to him at all
stages of the proceedings.’4. Yet, we have
granted relief to subserve the cause of
justice.
12. I.A. No.108501/2025 is accordingly
allowed. The Miscellaneous Application
stands disposed of in the afore-mentioned
terms.
13. It is made clear that the
precedential value of the Final Judgment
and Order dated 17.04.2025 has not been
watered down in any manner.
14. Ex abundanti cautela, it is recorded
that while Final Judgment and Order dated
17.04.2025 was authored by one of us
[Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.] for a different
coram [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin
Amanullah, JJ.], the Registry has
confirmed that the instant Miscellaneous
Application was marked to a Bench
including one of us [Ahsanuddin Amanullah,
J.]. In these circumstances, we have dealt
4
Nagaraj v Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 255.
M.A. NO.823/2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2036/2025
8
with and disposed of the same.
………………….J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
………………….J.
[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]
NEW DELHI
01ST MAY, 2025
M.A. NO.823/2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2036/2025
9
ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.16 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Miscellaneous Application No.823/2025 In Criminal
Appeal No.2036/2025
[Emanating from the Final Judgment and Order dated
17-04-2025 in Criminal Appeal No.2036/2025 passed
by this Court]
AJAY RAJ SHETTY Applicant-Appellant
VERSUS
DIRECTOR & ANR. Respondents
[IA No.108501/2025 – MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER]
Date : 01-05-2025 This matter was heard today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, Adv.
Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv.
Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv.
Mr. Uday Bhatia, Adv.
Mr. Kamran Khan, Adv.
Ms. Saloni Tangri, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Gurbani Bhatia, Adv.
Mr. Jayanti Singh, Adv.
Mr. Usman Ghani Khan, AoR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, AoR
Ms. Ananya Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Vipin Kumar, AOR
M.A. NO.823/2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2036/2025
10
Mr. Deepak Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
Mr. D N Ojha, Adv.
Mr. P K Singh, Adv.
Ms. Nisha Rani, Adv.
UPON hearing Counsel, the Court passed the
following
O R D E R
1. In terms of the Signed Order passed
by Their Lordships, I.A.
No.108501/2025 is allowed and the
Miscellaneous Application stands
disposed of.
(RAVI ARORA) (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed Order is placed on the file.]
M.A. NO.823/2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2036/2025
11
[ad_2]
Source link