Applicability of po act
Manjunath Sompur
(Querist) 02 June 2026
This query is : Resolved
The trail court passed an order of conviction for four years and fine under sec 468 and 420. High court reduced the period of conviction to one year with fine. supreme court confirmed the same. Now, can the accused file an application to trail court under PO Act?
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 02 June 2026
Yes, the accused can file an application in the trial court under the Probation of Offenders (PO) Act, or Section 360 of the Cr. PC, even after the Supreme Court has confirmed the conviction, provided the trial court itself had the initial jurisdiction to grant such relief, and the statute does not expressly prohibit it.
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 03 June 2026
Conviction has been confirmed as stated by you, which cannot be changed.
However, the convict may apply for reconsideration of sentence under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 through your lawyer, which s/he (your lawyer) must have advised you.
Manjunath Sompur
(Querist) 03 June 2026
Can a trail court reconsider the conviction order after SCI confirm the conviction? Is it not over-riding effect?
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 03 June 2026
It depends on the merits of the case. Consult a local senior advocate in the matter.
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 04 June 2026
You have mixed up two different situations of the order of conviction and sentence.
Conviction of the accused has attained finality in instant case, whereas, sentence can be reconsidered by the Trial Court.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 06 June 2026
Under Indian criminal jurisprudence, once the Supreme Court confirms a sentence, the trial court becomes functus officio (meaning its jurisdiction over the core case has ended) except for the mechanical execution of the sentencing warrant. It completely lacks the legal authority to alter, suspend, or substitute the substantive sentence passed by the higher courts.
When the Supreme Court hears an appeal and confirms the judgment, the orders of the trial court and the High Court merge into the final order of the Supreme Court. The trial court cannot entertain an application that effectively seeks to bypass or modify a decree confirmed by the apex court.
The benefit of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is exercised by a court “instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment.” It is an alternative to sentencing that must be considered during the trial, first appeal, or revision stages. It cannot be triggered as a fresh post-sentencing plea at the stage of execution.
While Section 420 (Cheating) and Section 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating) do not automatically bar the PO Act (since they do not carry death or life imprisonment), the appropriate forum to argue for probation was during the arguments on the point of sentence before the Trial Court, High Court, or the Supreme Court.
Because the order has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, the accused's remedies are strictly limited to the apex court itself:
The accused can file a Review Petition before the Supreme Court under Article 137 of the Constitution within 30 days of the judgment, pointing out any error apparent on the face of the record.
If the Review Petition is dismissed, the accused can file a Curative Petition as a last resort if they can establish a gross violation of principles of natural justice or a clear bias.
The accused can prefer a mercy petition for commutation or remission of the sentence to the Governor (Article 161) or the President (Article 72), though these are handled at the executive level rather than through the judiciary.
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 09 June 2026
Very well explained, opined and advised by learned senior expert Mr. T Kalaiselvan, which I endorse and appreciate his acumen, nothing more to add.
P. Venu
(Expert) 18 June 2026
"supreme court confirmed the same." Is it that the SLP was dismissed or that there had been a judgment on merits?
P. Venu
(Expert) 18 June 2026
If so, Review Petition could be filed in the High Court.
