Delhi High Court
Pinnu Singh vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 7 April, 2026
$~73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 07.04.2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 208/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10528/2026
PINNU SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jaspreet Singh Kapur and Ms.
Shweta, Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State
with SI Ankit Sharma, PS Fatehpur
Beri.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Petitioner (complainant de facto before the trial court) has assailed
judgment dated 28.02.2026 of the learned appellate court, whereby the
sentence awarded by the trial court was modified by extending benefit under
the Probation of Offenders Act.
2. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, but I do not find it a fit
case to even issue notice.
CRL.REV.P. 208/2026 Page 1 of 5 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569
af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID – 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
Digitally Signed 96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:DIKSHA RAWAT Date: 2026.04.07 06:04:06 -07’00’
Signing Date:07.04.2026
18:08:41
3. Broadly speaking, circumstances relevant for present purposes are
that in trial arising out of FIR No. 42/2009 of Police Station Fatehpur Beri,
the present respondent no. 2 was convicted by the learned trial Magistrate
for offence under Section 420 IPC, but was acquitted as regards offence
under Section 468/471 IPC. The learned trial Magistrate by way of order
dated 15.09.2023 imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for three years
plus compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/- to be paid to the
complainant de facto (the present petitioner). The present respondent no. 2
preferred an appeal before the learned Court of Sessions. By way of the
judgment impugned in the present case, the learned appellate court upheld
the conviction, but modified the sentence by maintaining the payment of
compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the present petitioner and extending the
benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the present
respondent no. 2. Hence, the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner on instruction admits that the
compensation as awarded stands paid, but contends that the appellate court
failed to appreciate that the trial court had recorded specific reasoning for
not extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. It is also contended
that even the compensation awarded to the present petitioner (the
complainant de facto of the State case) was on lower side, so the appellate
court ought to have enhanced the compensation amount. It is contended that
the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the present respondent
no. 2 is liable to undergo simple imprisonment for three years. However, it
is also admitted that the present petitioner never approached any court with
CRL.REV.P. 208/2026 Page 2 of 5 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
Signature Not Verified 569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID – 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
Digitally Signed , cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.07 06:03:55 -07’00’
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:07.04.2026
18:08:41
challenge to the quantum of compensation.
5. At the outset, the scope of the revision proceedings has to be kept in
mind and that scope is extremely limited. This Court, while exercising
revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 BNSS (Section 397 CrPC) cannot
adjudicate on the basis of criteria contemplated for appellate jurisdiction.
6. The learned Court of Sessions in the impugned 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 present
respondent no. 2. I am in complete agreement with this view of the learned
Court of Sessions. For ready reference, the relevant portion of trial court
order on sentence is extracted below:
“In the considered opinion of this court, after taking into consideration the
nature and gravity of the offence for which the convict has been convicted
and the pecuniary loss suffered by the complainant, time taken for disposal
of the case and expenses incurred by the complainant and State in litigation,
this court does not deem it to be fit case for consideration of release of
convict Braham Singh on probation or after admonition. His application
under section 3 & 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 r/w Section
360 CrPC is hence, dismissed.”
7. The provision under Section 402 BNSS (Section 361 CrPC) enjoins
upon the trial court duty to record special reasons for not extending the
benefit of probation to a person entitled to the same under the provisions of
Probation of Offenders Act or under Section 401 BNSS (Section 360 CrPC).
It is not for grant of probation, but for denial of probation that the trial court
is under a duty to record special reasons. In other words, grant of probation
CRL.REV.P. 208/2026 Page 3 of 5 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
Signature Not Verified GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID – 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
Digitally Signed 70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2
6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.07 06:03:46 -07’00’
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:07.04.2026
18:08:41
in the specified offences is the rule while denial thereof is an exception, to
be supported by special reasons. It must be kept in mind that what the
legislature mandates under Section 402 BNSS (Section 361 CrPC) 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 grant of probation would be
counterproductive or harmful for the society.
8. As extracted above, the learned trial Magistrate did not record any
reason, what to say of special reason for denying the benefit of probation to
the present respondent no. 2. 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 grant of probation. None of those factors has
any logical connection with the reformative approach towards a criminal.
Rather, the factors like time taken by the State for disposal of trial can be a
ground to grant but cannot be a ground to deny probation, because delay in
trial in itself is punitive.
9. On the other hand, in the impugned judgment the learned Court of
Sessions gave detailed reasons for grant of benefit of probation, which are
extracted below:
“It is not in dispute that convict and victims are known to each other
belonging to same village. The FIR pertains to year 2009 and appellant has
been facing trial before Ld. Trial Court since 2011, when he was 52 years ofCRL.REV.P. 208/2026 Page 4 of 5 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIAGIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
Signature Not Verified 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569
af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID – 7047638,KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
Digitally Signed 96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:DIKSHA RAWAT Date: 2026.04.07 06:03:37 -07’00’Signing Date:07.04.2026
18:08:41
age. By now in 2026, the age of the appellant must be around 67 years.
Appellant/convict has already suffered long trial of more than 15 years.
Appellant/convict and complainant are neighbors and accordingly in order
to avoid any further animosity between neighbors, appellant/convict deserve
an opportunity to reform himself, at this elderly age. Appellant has shown
his repentance to the offence and assured not to repeat the same in future.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the nature of
offence, age of the convict, long trial of 15 years, I am of the considered
opinion to extend benefit of probation to appellant/convict as the present
case pertains to financial embezzlement owing to a property dispute and no
forgery has been established.”
10. I am unable to find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the
impugned judgment so the same is upheld. The present revision petition is
completely devoid of merits and is frivolous, so dismissed. Accompanying
application also stands disposed of.
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID – 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801
e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.07 06:03:22 -07’00’
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 7, 2026
‘rs’
CRL.REV.P. 208/2026 Page 5 of 5 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:07.04.2026
18:08:41