‘Probation rule, denial exception’: Delhi High Court protects 67-year-old convict from jail term after 15-year trial | Legal News

5 min readNew DelhiApr 8, 2026 05:44 PM IST

The Delhi High Court recently reaffirmed the reformative approach of criminal justice by upholding a decision to grant probation to a 67-year-old man convicted of cheating, who had undergone the rigours of a trial spanning over 15 years.

Justice Girish Kathpalia, in an April 7 order, held that the grant of probation is the “rule” and its denial is an “exception”, which must be supported by “special reasons” and not general considerations such as financial loss or delay in trial.

The high court dismissed the revision petition filed by the man’s neighbour, who sought to send the elderly convict to jail for three years despite receiving the court-ordered compensation of Rs 6.50 lakh.

“It must be kept in mind that what the legislature mandates..is not just the ‘reasons’ but the ‘special reasons’. The ‘special’ reasons are those reasons which would show that the convict stands beyond the possibility and scope of reformation, or that a grant of probation would be counterproductive or harmful to society,” the order read.

Justice Girish Kathpalia found no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the previous judgment of the appellate court.

Reform at elderly age

It was placed on record that the parties are neighbours and that the case traces back to an FIR lodged in 2009, with the accused facing trial since 2011, when he was about 52 years old.

It was further noted that the man is now around 67 years of age and has already undergone the rigours of a prolonged trial spanning over 15 years. The appellate court, while modifying the sentence, took into account the need to avoid further animosity between neighbours and held that the man should be given an opportunity to reform at this stage of life.

The trial court previously awarded a conviction to the petitioenr’s neighbour for the offence of cheating, but the man was acquitted of the offence of forgery. By an order of September 15, 2023, the trial court imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for three years and a compensation of Rs 6.50 lakh to be paid to the petitioner.

Story continues below this ad

Subsequently, the man preferred an appeal. The appellate court upheld the conviction, but modified the sentence of the convict by maintaining the payment of compensation of Rs 6.50 lakh to the petitioner and extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.

‘Denial of probation an exception’

• The Delhi High Court pointed out that it is not for the grant of probation, but for the denial of probation that the trial court is under a duty to record special reasons. 
• A grant of probation in the specified offences is the rule, while denial is an exception, to be supported by special reasons. 
• The Delhi High Court agreed with the trial court, which, in its judgment, observed that there was no plausible explanation in the order on sentence passed by the trial court for declining the probation application of the man.
• The high court also pointed out that the relevant laws enjoin upon the trial court a duty to record special reasons for not extending the benefit of probation to a person entitled to the same under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.
• The high court also found that the pecuniary loss suffered by the complainant, expenses incurred by the complainant and the state in litigation and the time taken for disposal of the case are not the factors which are inconsonant with the grant of probation. 
• It was further clarified that none of those factors has any logical connection with the reformative approach towards a criminal. 
• On the contrary, the Delhi High Court emphasised that factors like time taken by the state for the disposal of the trial can be a ground to grant but cannot be a ground to deny probation, because delay in trial in itself is punitive.  
• The high court found no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the previous judgment and upheld the same. 

Liable to go to jail

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Jaspreet Singh Kapur admitted that the compensation which was previously awarded has been paid, but contended that the appellate court failed to appreciate that the trial court had recorded specific reasoning for not extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. 

It was also contended that even the compensation awarded to the petitioner was on the lower side, so the appellate court should have enhanced the compensation amount. 

Kapur also contended that the sadio judgment is liable to be set aside and the accused is liable to undergo simple imprisonment for three years. On the other hand, the state was represented by the assistant public prosecutor Amit Ahlawat in the matter. 

Expand

Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape.

Expertise


Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen.


Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on:



Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.


Legal Simplification: Translating dense “legalese” into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy.


Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. … Read More

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd