Probaction of Offenders
Probaction of Offenders
Probaction of Offenders
Introduction
The object of Criminal Law is more inclined towards the reformation
of the offender than to punish him. Instead of keeping an accused
with hardened criminals in a prison, the court can order personal
freedom on promise of good behaviour and can also order a period
of supervision over an offender. This is the concept behind
‘probation’. Black’s law dictionary defines ‘probation’ as ‘allowing a
person convicted of some minor offence (particularly juvenile
offenders) to go at large, under a suspension of sentence, during
good behaviour, and generally under the supervision or
guardianship of a ‘probation officer’.
While dealing with this Act, the three most important provisions
that need to be highlighted are sections 3, 4 and 6. We will now see
each of these sections one by one.
Section 3
Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.—
When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence
punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or
1
Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1972) 2 SCC 633
Page 5 of 17
section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or
any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two
years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any
other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the
court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having
regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the
offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do,
then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any
punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under
section 4 release him after due admonition.
Section 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 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
Page 6 of 17
(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 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.
Page 7 of 17
Section 6
Restrictions on imprisonment of offenders under twenty-one years
of age.—(1) When any person under twenty-one years of age is
found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with
imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life), the court by
which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him to
imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the
circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and
the character of the offender, it would not be desirable to deal with
him under section 3 or section 4, and if the court passes any
sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it shall record its reasons
for doing so.
The question of age of the person is relevant not for the purpose of
determining his guilt but only for the purpose of punishment which
he should suffer for the offence of which he is found guilty.
Therefore, where a court found that offender was not under the age
of 21 years on the date when court found him guilty, sub-section (1)
of section 6 will not apply [5]
2
Keshav Sitaram Sali v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 291
3
Basikesan v.State of Orissa , AIR 1967 Ori 4
4
Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana, 1972 SC 2434
Page 9 of 17
The Act insists that the Court may order for payment by the
offender such compensation and a cost of the proceedings as it
thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to the victim.
The Act empowers the Court to try and sentence the offender to
imprisonment under the provisions of this Act. Such order may also
be made by the High Court or any other Court when the case comes
before it on appeal or in revision.
The Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu
and Kashmir. This Act comes into force in a State on such date as the
State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
appoint. It also provides liberty to State Governments to bring the
Act into force on different dates in different parts of that State.
Page 11 of 17
(d) advise and assist, in such cases and in such manner as may be
prescribed, persons who have been released under section 4;
5
Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 1967 Raj 190
6
State of Maharashtra v. Natverlal, AIR 1980 SC 593
7
Smt. Devki v. State of Haryana,AIR 1979 SC 1948
8
State of Rajasthan v Sri Chand
Page 13 of 17
It is a settled law that nobody can claim benefit under the Act as a
matter of right11. It was observed in State of Sikkim v. Dorjee
Sherpa and Ors12 that the Court should not take technical views in
certain cases and should take into consideration some other aspects
such as possibility of losing the job, for invoking the provisions of
Probation of Offenders Act even in serious offences. It has further
been contended that the Court should also take into consideration
that the convicts belonging to middle class families without any
criminal antecedent often become victim of circumstances because
of undesirable company and other evil influences available to such
young generation.
9
Azhar Ali v. State of West Bengal (2013) 10 SCC 31
10
State of Rajasthan v Sri Chand
11
Commandment 20 BK. ITB Police v. Sanjay Binjola, AIR 2001 SC 2058
12
State of Sikkim v. Dorjee Sherpa And Ors, 1998 CriLJ 2685
Page 14 of 17
13
State of Sikkim v. Dorjee Sherpa And Ors, 1998 CriLJ 2685
14
Vajja Srinivasu alias Srinu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2002) 9 SCC 620
15
Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (AIR 2000 SC 1677)
16
Supra 12
17
Smt. Devki alias Kala v. State of Haryana, (AIR 1979 SC 1948)
18
Kamroonissa v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 2117
Page 15 of 17
Conclusion:
To conclude, it can be said that the measure of alternative
punishment i.e., probation and the objective of theory of
reformative punishment would be achieved only if the judiciary and
the administration work together. It would be of great benefit for a
country like India, where the jails are often overcrowded, with
frequent human rights violations which would harden the human
inside a person. Probation is an affirmation of the human inside
every being and it must be given importance. The reform and
rehabilitation process have to be worked out in context of existing
social conditions to achieve the ultimate objective to reclaim back
those offenders to orderly society.
Page 16 of 17
Bibliography
1.Lectures On Criminal Procedure By Rv Kelkar
2. The Code On Criminal Procedure By Ratanlal Dhirajlal
3.http://jjscup.gov.in/docs/the-probation-of-offenders-act-
1958.pdf
4.https://www.livelaw.in/benefit-probation-can-given-
offences-discretionary-minimum-sentence-sc/
5. http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/10-salient-
features-of-the-probation-of-offenders-act-1958/119361
Case laws
[1]Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1972) 2 SCC 633.
[2] Keshav Sitaram Sali v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC
291.
[3]Basikesan v.State of Orissa , AIR 1967 Ori 4.
[4] Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana, 1972 SC 2434.
[5]Ramji Nissar v. State of Bihar; AIR 1963 SC 1088.
[6]Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 1967 Raj 190
[7]State of Maharashtra v. Natverlal, AIR 1980 SC 593.
[8] Smt. Devki v. State of Haryana,AIR 1979 SC 1948.
[9]State of Rajasthan v Sri Chand
[10] Azhar Ali v. State of West Bengal (2013) 10 SCC 31
[11]State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dharam Pal (2004) 9 SCC 681
[12]Commandment 20 BK. ITB Police v. Sanjay Binjola, AIR 2001
SC 2058
[13]State of Sikkim v. Dorjee Sherpa And Ors, 1998 CriLJ 2685
[14]State of Gujarat v. VA Chauhan, (AIR 1983 SC 359)
[15] Vajja Srinivasu alias Srinu v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
(2002) 9 SCC 620
[16]Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (AIR 2000 SC 1677)
[17]Supra 12
Page 17 of 17