Can Courts Grant Probation in White-Collar Offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC? Clarification on Sentencing Discretion and Consistency for Identically Placed Co-Accused

LawSikho
September 4, 2025
Category: High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Probation can be granted even after conviction for serious economic offences, if co-accused have been similarly treated and the prosecution raises no objection; this judgment affirms earlier precedent and clarifies sentencing consistency for identically situated offenders. Applicable as binding precedent for subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana, particularly in handling sentencing for similar offences.

Summary

Category	Data
Case Name	CRR/60/2015 of SANJAY KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA
CNR	PHHC010703882015
Date of Registration	08-01-2015
Decision Date	01-09-2025
Disposal Nature	DISPOSED OF
Judgment Author	MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Court	High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Precedent Value	Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana
Overrules / Affirms	Affirms approach adopted in CRR-643 of 2015 (Order dated 19.10.2024 for identically placed co-accused)
Type of Law	Criminal Law – Sentencing; Probation
Questions of Law	Whether probation can be granted to accused convicted under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC where co-accused were similarly treated.
Ratio Decidendi	The Court clarified that, where co-accused in identical circumstances have already been released on probation and the prosecution has no objection, the Court can extend similar relief to the remaining accused. Conviction is upheld but sentence is modified to probation, upon furnishing bond and undertaking of good conduct, subject to breach consequences. This approach ensures consistency and parity in sentencing among similarly situated offenders, especially in the absence of objections from the State and where no further criminal activity is reported during the interregnum.
Judgments Relied Upon	CRR-643 of 2015 (Order dated 19.10.2024)
Facts as Summarised by the Court	Petitioner and co-accused convicted under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. The co-accused was released on probation. Petitioner seeks parity, no merit challenge pressed, and prosecution raises no objection to probation.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana regarding probation and parity in sentencing
Persuasive For	May be cited before other High Courts in support of parity and probation jurisprudence for identically placed co-accused
Follows	Follows the approach in CRR-643 of 2015 (Order dated 19.10.2024)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

The judgment clarifies that when a co-accused has already been released on probation under similar facts and circumstances, parity requires that identically placed convicts may also be considered for similar relief.
State’s non-objection to probation further facilitates parity and sentencing consistency.
Lawyers representing similarly situated convicts can seek equal treatment based on previous orders in identically situated cases.
No merit challenge need be pressed if the only relief sought is modification of sentence to probation.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

The Court took note that the petitioner had not pressed challenge on merits but sought relief only as to sentence, seeking release on probation in light of identical circumstances with a co-accused.
It cited the prior order in CRR-643 of 2015 wherein co-accused was released on probation due to similar facts and sentence already undergone.
The State did not dispute the parity or object to granting probation.
The Court, maintaining consistency and parity in sentencing, modified the sentence to release the petitioner on probation subject to furnishing of bond and conditions of good behaviour and supervision.
It stipulated breach consequences to ensure compliance.
The approach ensures equitable treatment and upholds sentencing fairness.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

Did not challenge conviction on merits, confined request to quantum of sentence.
Sought release on probation as co-accused in identical circumstances was so treated.
Not involved in any other criminal offence in the interim period.

Respondent (State)

Did not dispute factual similarity or parity.
No objection to granting probation.

Factual Background

The petitioner and co-accused were convicted for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, based on FIR No. 521 dated 19.10.2008 at Police Station Civil Line, Karnal. The trial court convicted and sentenced both the petitioner and co-accused. The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging sentence (not conviction), seeking parity as co-accused had already been released on probation by court order dated 19.10.2024. No further criminal involvement during the intervening period was reported.

Statutory Analysis

The Court’s decision operated within the framework of the Indian Penal Code provisions: Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document).
The order was passed under sentencing discretion, read with the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (though not expressly mentioned).
The judgment did not interpret the provisions expansively or narrowly but applied settled principles of parity and probation in sentencing.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.

Procedural Innovations

The Court took up and disposed the main case immediately upon allowing an application for expeditious hearing.
Required specific conditions: probation bond of Rs. 20,000/-, surety, undertaking of good behaviour for two years, and supervision by probation officer.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed – Approach in earlier order for co-accused affirmed and extended.

Citations

CRR-60-2015 of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Haryana, Order dated 01-09-2025, High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Relies on CRR-643 of 2015, Order dated 19.10.2024.