W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 25.06.2026 Pronounced on :09.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 Kartheeswari ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Home (Prison IV) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus, New Jail Road, Madurai – 625 016. 4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai. 5.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Inspector of Police, 1/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 Naalatinpudhur Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.54 of 2014) 6.The Probation Officer, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. (R6 is suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated 17.06.2026 in W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026) ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition Criminal is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus, to extend the benefits under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 against the punishment imposed on the petitioner's husband Kannan (PID No.413229) Son of Ganapathi who is confined at Palayamkottai Central Prison as per the orders in Crl.A(MD).No. 526 of 2022 dated 20.02.2026 on the file of the this Court in Crime No.54 of 2014 on the file of the fifth respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan For Respondents : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.) The Writ Petition Criminal has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the petitioner's husband, Kannan (PID 2/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 No.413229), son of Ganapathi, who is presently confined in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, pursuant to the sentence imposed by this Court in Crl.A. (MD).No.526 of 2022 by judgment dated 20.02.2026, arising out of Crime No. 54 of 2014 on the file of the fifth respondent police. 2. Facts of the case: 2.1. 2. Facts of the case: 2.1. The petitioner's husband, his brothers, and his parents were arrayed as accused in Crime No.54 of 2014 on the file of the fifth respondent Police Station for offences under Sections 109, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307 and 302 IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, a final report was filed against them for offences under Sections 148, 341, 294(b), 307 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. The petitioner's husband was arrayed as A3 in the said case. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge, in S.C.No.327 of 2015, by judgment dated 22.07.2022, convicted the petitioner's husband, his parents and his brother-in-law under various provisions of law and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. 2.2. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred Criminal Appeal in Crl.A. (MD).No.526 of 2022 before the Division Bench of this Court. By judgment dated 20.02.2026, the Hon'ble Division Bench set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner's husband under Section 302 read with 3/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 Section 149 IPC and the other offences, and instead found him guilty under Section 324 IPC. Consequently, he was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. Thereafter, while undergoing imprisonment, the petitioner submitted a representation to the prison authorities stating that he is a first-time offender and is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Since the representation was not considered by the prison authorities, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to her husband. 3. Submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner: 3.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that, in view of Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, this Court possesses ample jurisdiction to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner's husband. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner's husband is a first-time offender and his conduct during incarceration has been satisfactory. It is further submitted that the omission to seek or grant the benefit under Section 4 of the Act at the time of disposal of Crl.A.(MD).No.526 of 2022 cannot deprive him of the statutory protection otherwise available under 4/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 the Act. The learned counsel would submit that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, being beneficial in nature, deserve a liberal construction to advance the object of rehabilitation and reformation. In support of his contention, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chellammal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 461. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed that the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, be extended to the petitioner's husband and that he be released from custody. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for state of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side): 4.1. Per contra, the learned counsel for state of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) would submit that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. According to the learned counsel for state of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner's husband did not seek the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act at the time of hearing of Crl.A. (MD).No.526 of 2022. Having allowed the judgment dated 20.02.2026 to attain finality, the petitioner cannot seek alteration of the sentence through the present writ petition. It is further contended that granting such relief would virtually amount to reviewing or modifying the judgment rendered in the criminal appeal, which is expressly prohibited under Section 362 Cr.P.C. The learned 5/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 counsel for state of Tamil Nadu would further submit that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chellammal case does not advance the petitioner's case, since the Supreme Court, in that case, instead of granting relief merely remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration of the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act. On these grounds, the learned counsel for state of Tamil Nadu prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 6. Discussion: 6.1. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is a beneficial social welfare legislation intended to afford an opportunity for reformation and rehabilitation to deserving offenders. Section 4 of the Act empowers the Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct after considering the circumstances of the case and upon obtaining a report from the Probation Officer. Since the petitioner specifically sought the benefit under Section 4 of the Act for her husband, this Court called for a report from the Probation Officer. The Probation Officer has submitted his report. The same is extracted hereunder: 6/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 8/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 6.2. A careful reading of the report reveals a categorical recommendation in favour of the husband of the petitioner. The report indicates that the petitioner's husband has every chance for reformation and rehabilitation. It further records that, from the date of occurrence in the year 2014 till date, the petitioner's husband is not involved in any other criminal activity and is keeping a good conduct. The occurrence itself arose out of a village dispute relating to drawing drinking water from a public tap. The report further reveals that the petitioner is married, belongs to a poor family, and is eking out his livelihood through manual work. This Court takes into consideration the petitioner's social background, conduct, and prospects of reformation and the Probation Officer's Report opining that he is a fit person to be extended the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 6.3. In the light of the above materials, the question that arises for consideration is whether this Court is voiceless to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Act merely because the criminal appeal has already been disposed of. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is extracted hereunder: “ 4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.— (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having 11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender. (4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified 12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. (5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned.” 6.4. In the case of Chellammal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 461, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the scope of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act in the following terms: “ 26. On consideration of the precedents and based on a comparative study of Section 360, Cr. PC and sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act, what is revealed is that the latter is wider and expansive in its coverage than the former. Inter alia, while Section 360 permits release of an offender, more twenty-one years old, on probation when he is sentenced to imprisonment for less than seven years or fine, Section 4 of the Probation Act enables a court to exercise its discretion in any case where the offender is found to have committed an offence such that he is punishable with any sentence other than death or life 13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 imprisonment. Additionally, the non-obstante clause in sub- section gives overriding effect to sub-section (1) of Section 4 over any other law for the time being in force. Also, it is noteworthy that Section 361, Cr. PC itself, being a subsequent legislation, engrafts a provision that in any case where the court could have dealt with an accused under the provisions of the Probation Act but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons therefor. 27. What logically follows from a conjoint reading of sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act and Section 361, Cr. PC is that if Section 360, Cr. PC were not applicable in a particular case, there is no reason why Section 4 of the Probation Act would not be attracted. 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 is 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 14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 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.” The above principles make it abundantly clear that the Court has a solemn duty to consider the applicability of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 wherever the statutory requirements are satisfied. Therefore, merely because the benefit under Section 4 of the Act was not sought or considered at the time of disposal of the criminal appeal, an otherwise eligible offender cannot be denied the statutory benefit solely on that ground. 6.5. It is true that Section 362 Cr.P.C. imposes a bar on alteration or review of a judgment once it has been signed. However, the said provision cannot be interpreted in a manner that defeats the object of a beneficial social welfare legislation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in appropriate cases, recognised the power of the High Courts to exercise their inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of Court. 15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 6.6. The power of this Court is not fettered and it can be used in extraordinary situation. Considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing on either side, taking note of the exceptional circumstances of the present case, following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Popular Muthiah v. State, reported in (2006) 7 SCC 296, this Court is fully empowered to invoke the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the interest of justice. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: “26. Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the power of the appellate court. Indisputably, stricto sensu in terms thereof the appellate court cannot direct a person to stand trial. Its jurisdiction is specified thereunder. 27. While exercising its appellate power, the jurisdiction of the High Court although is limited but, in our opinion, there exists a distinction but a significant one being that the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction and/or inherent jurisdiction not only when an application therefor is filed but also suo motu. It is not in dispute that suo motu power can be exercised by the High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. There may not, therefore, be an embargo for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction while exercising other jurisdictions in the matter. Keeping in view the intention of Parliament, while making the new law the emphasis of Parliament being “a case before the court” in contradistinction from “a person who is arrayed as an accused before it” when the High Court is seized with the entire case although would exercise a 16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 limited jurisdiction in terms of Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same, in our considered view, cannot be held to limit its other powers and in particular that of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the matter which is not before it.” 30. In respect of the incidental or supplemental power, evidently, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction irrespective of the nature of the proceedings. It is not trammelled by procedural restrictions in that: (i) Power can be exercised suo motu in the interest of justice. If such a power is not conceded, it may even lead to injustice to an accused. (ii) Such a power can be exercised concurrently with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction and no formal application is required to be filed therefor. (iii) It is, however, beyond any doubt that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not limited. It can inter alia be exercised where the Code is silent, where the power of the court is not treated as exhaustive, or there is a specific provision in the Code; or the statute does not fall within the purview of the Code because it involves application of a special law. It acts ex debito justitiae. It can, thus, do real and substantial justice for which alone it exists.” 6.7. In Pratap Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in JT 2002 (6) SC 441, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a similar issue and observed 17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 that the technical or procedural constraints should not stand in the way of extending the benefits of beneficial legislation where the facts otherwise justify such relief. The underlying principle is that procedural law is intended to advance justice and not to thwart it. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: “ 4. In our opinion, an accused against whom an order under section 9 of the Probation of Offenders Act had been passed cannot be left without a judicial remedy. Assuming for the sake of argument that an appeal was not maintainable, the High Court ought and could have regarded the appeal which was filed as being a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. and should have decided the case on merits. The said provision is meant for situations like the present one. In the alternative, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would always be filed and entertained. As long as a remedy is available to the accused, it matters little as to the nomenclature attached to it. The High Court in the present case should have regarded the appeal which was filed against the order under section 9 of the Probation of Offenders Act as a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. and decided it according to law. As this has not been done, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the High Court to hear the case afresh by treating the appeal filed by the appellant as a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.” 6.8. The entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit under Section 4 of the 18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 Probation of Offenders Act cannot, therefore, be rejected solely on the ground that such relief was not sought or granted at the time of disposal of Criminal Appeal (MD) No.526 of 2022. If the petitioner is otherwise eligible and the materials on record demonstrate that he satisfies the statutory requirements, denial of such benefit merely on account of a procedural restriction would defeat the very object of the enactment. 6.9. Procedure is but a handmaid of justice. When a beneficial social welfare statute confers a substantive right upon an eligible offender, the Court must adopt an interpretation that advances the object of the legislation rather than the one which defeats it. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for consideration under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be rejected solely by invoking the bar contained under Section 362 Cr.P.C. 6.10. Looking at the issue from another perspective, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the benefit available under a beneficial legislation cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay in raising the claim. In the context of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after the conclusion of the trial, disposal of the appeal, and even after the dismissal of 19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 the appeal by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has further recognised the power of the High Court to entertain proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and extended the statutory benefit, notwithstanding the finality reached to the criminal proceedings. At the same time, the Supreme Court has cautioned that such jurisdiction must be exercised only after satisfying the statutory requirements prescribed under the concerned enactment. 6.11. The underlying principle flowing from the above decisions is that where a beneficial statute confers a substantive right upon an eligible person, procedural barriers should not be permitted to defeat such entitlement. What is relevant is not the stage at which the claim is made, but whether the claimant satisfies the conditions prescribed by the statute. 6.12. The same principle, in the considered view of this Court, would equally apply to a claim made under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Act is a reformative legislation intended to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation and social reintegration to deserving offenders. If the materials placed before the Court demonstrate that the offender fulfils the requirements of Section 4 of the Act, the benefit cannot be denied merely because such a plea was not raised at the time of disposal of the criminal appeal. 20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 6.13. In the present case, this Court has already obtained a report from the Probation Officer. The report is wholly favourable to the petitioner's husband. The report discloses that he is a first-time offender, that he is keeping good conduct, that he is not involved in any other criminal activity after the occurrence, and that he possesses every chance of reformation and rehabilitation and turning over a new leaf. The Probation Officer has specifically recommended extending the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 6.14. This Court also takes into consideration the fact that the petitioner's husband ultimately stands convicted only for the offence under Section 324 IPC and not for any graver offences for which he was originally charged. Having regard to the nature of the offence, the surrounding circumstances and the favourable report of the Probation Officer, this Court is satisfied that extending the benefit of probation would advance the object of reformation and rehabilitation. In such circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner's husband fulfils the requirements contemplated under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 6.15. Being a Constitutional Court entrusted with the duty of securing complete justice within the framework of law, this Court is empowered to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in exceptional cases where the facts and circumstances so warrant. The exercise of such jurisdiction is intended to ensure that procedural limitations do not defeat the substantive rights conferred under a beneficial legislation. In the present case, where the petitioner has established his entitlement to the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the favourable report of the Probation Officer and the surrounding circumstances, this Court is satisfied that this is a fit case to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction in order to secure the ends of justice. This approach is in consonance with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10, wherein it was observed as follows: “50.Extraordinary situations demand extraordinary remedies. While dealing with an unprecedented case, the Court has to innovate the law and may also pass an unconventional order keeping in mind that an extraordinary fact situation requires extraordinary measures.” 6.16. Having regard to the nature of the offence, the character of the offender, the favourable report of the Probation Officer, the fact that the petitioner is a first-time offender and the reformative object of the Probation of 22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 Offenders Act, this Court is satisfied that this is a fit case for extending the benefit under Section 4 of the Act. 7. Conclusion: 7.1. Accordingly, this Court extends the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the petitioner's husband, namely Kannan (PID No.413229). The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, is directed to produce him before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate concerned for execution of the bond and compliance with such conditions as may be imposed under Section 4 of the Act. Upon such compliance, he shall be released forthwith. 7.2. In the result, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. [N.A.V.,J.] & [K.K.R.K.,J.] 09.07.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No pal/sbn 23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Prison IV) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus, New Jail Road, Madurai – 625 016. 4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai. 5.The Inspector of Police, Naalatinpudhur Police Station, Thoothukudi District. 6.The Probation Officer, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. 7.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 24/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 N.ANAND VENKATESH,J. and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. pal/sbn Pre-delivery Order made in W.P.CRL(MD).No.3197 of 2026 Dated:09.07.2026 25/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis