CRPC Assignment
CRPC Assignment
CRPC Assignment
SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
ROLL NO 42
REGULAR
Page | 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This project would not have been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals
and organizations. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them. I am highly indebted to
Dr. Asad Malik for his guidance and constant supervision and also for providing necessary
information regarding the project. I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude towards the
very efficient support staff and the Librarian as their help and support was instrumental in all the
research which will help me in furthering my work.
My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleagues in developing the project and people who
have willingly helped me out with their abilities. At last, I would like to thank each and every one
who has directly or indirectly contributed to this work.
- Mohd Shueab
Page | 2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction---------------------------------------- 4
2. Origin of Probation ----------------------------------6
3. Object of Probation ----------------------------------7
4. Similarity and Differences in the Act and Section ----- 8
5. Limitation of Section 360 Cr.P.C. -------------------- 11
6. Conflict of Section and Act -------------------------- 12
7. When, Where and What to Apply -------------------- 14
8. Conclusion ----------------------------------------- 18
9. Bibliography --------------------------------------- 19
Page | 3
1. INTRODUCTION
In the modern age we believe in reformative methods of the criminal justice system. We know
very well criminals are not born but circumstances turn them. Many jurists think criminals can
make reform and have an opinion that if criminals find proper treatment without any hard
punishment, they can improve their attitude towards society. Probation is well step in this direction,
in which offenders are supervised by any prominent officers without sending them jail. Probation
is the status of a convicted offender during a period of suspension of the sentence in which he is
given liberty conditioned on his good behavior and in which the state by a personal supervision
attempts to assist him to maintain good behavior.1
Retaliation or retribution, deterrence, expiation, reformation, and protection of the society from
the wrongdoer have been the prevailing theories of punishment in the distant past, and different
aspects of these theories have swayed the minds of the jurists at different times. But with the
growth of civilization and greater control of society over its members, the ideas changed even in
respect of the theory of punishment. The two basic principles which have, however, held the field
through the ages have been:
(i) making the offender feel that what he did was wrong and that he was making a penance
for it; and
(ii) to create a sort of terror or abhorrence among the people generally, or, to give
satisfaction to the feeling of revenge to the aggrieved person.
The idea of probation of offenders originated in the United States of America. Suffice it to say that
the Probation of First Offenders Act was passed in England in 1887, and the first Federal Probation
Act was passed in the U.S.A. in 1925.2 The opinion of Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United
States of America may, however, be quoted here with advantage:
1
Dheerendra Singh, “Law of Probation: Problems & Prospectives” 8(2) Vidhigya (2013).
2
S. D. Singh, “Law of Probation in India with Special Reference to Uttar Pradesh” 20 The Indian Journal of Social
Work(1959).
Page | 4
"Years of experience in the field of law enforcement have long since led me to the
conclusion that safety of society cannot be assured by putting all our trusts in maximum
security prisons. We must increasingly place more and more emphasis on preventing our
youth from gravitating toward a life of crime and upon salvaging a vast proportion of our
delinquents through human institutions and enlightened systems of probation and parole."
The idea of probation is based on this new aspect of the principle of criminal justice, ‘the
reformation and rehabilitation of the offending party’, which means the restoration of the diseased
limb of society by more human and social treatment. Law reports are full of minor incidents which
ultimately became responsible for the commission of major crimes, or for converting an otherwise
peaceful citizen into a dangerous outlaw.
In Tahsildar Singh v. State3 presents a glaring example of the turn of events for the worse.
"The history of Tahsildar Singh's family," observes James J. in the case, "unfolds a woeful
tale of an ordinary village feud leading Singh who had the fire and venom of his ancestors
in him was forced by the circumstances to adopt the life of an outlaw, resulting in large-
scale banditry and murders, which in their own turn called for efforts on an unusually
large-scale on behalf of three States, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Vindhya
Pradesh, to bring his activities to an end. And such cases are by no means few and far
between.
In the criminal justice system, there is a big problem to handle the process of granting benefit to
the deserving offenders under the age, character, and respectability of them. Generally, Magistrate
Courts have been exercising their power to release such offenders on probation who come under
section 3, 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code
1973. Section 361 provides the mandatory rule to all the Magistrate Courts that they will have to
mention reason in the judgment if they refuse benefit of probation of the offender. Section 361
requires the court to allow the benefit of release on probation even to an offender who has been
previously convicted unless there are special reason for denying this benefit to him.4
3
A.I.R. 1958 All. 255
4
Vishnu Dev Shaw v. State of West Bengal, 1979 SCC 714.
Page | 5
The Central Probation Act was enacted in 1958. Before the enactment of 1958 many states had
their own probation laws and some of them continue to have them even now. Most of the states
have, however, adopted the Probation of Offenders Act. The only objective of probation laws is to
avoid contamination of relatively soft and young offenders by hardened ones in prisons. It does
not by any means signify the clearance from the guilt and legal consequences so far as stigma and
disabilities are concern.5
2. ORIGIN OF PROBATION
Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was the earliest provision to have dealt with
probation. After amendment in 1974, it stands as S.360 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1974.The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 contains elaborate provisions relating to probation of
offenders, which are made applicable throughout the country. The Act provides four different
modes of dealing with youthful and other offenders in lieu of sentence, subject to certain
conditions. These include:
(2) Release on entering a bond on probation of good conduct with or without supervision,
and on payment by the offender the compensation and costs to the victim if so ordered, the
courts being empowered to vary the conditions of the bond and to sentence and impose a
fine if he failed to observe the conditions of the bond;
(3) Persons under twenty-one years of age are not to be sentenced to imprisonment unless
the court calls for a report from the probation officer or records reasons to the contrary in
writing; and
(4) The person released on probation does not suffer a disqualification attached to a
conviction under any other law.
It must be stated that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act are not confined to juveniles
alone but extend to adults also. Provisions of the Act are not only confined to offenses committed
under the Indian Penal Code but they extend to offenses under other special laws such as the
5
Southern Railway v. T.R. Chellappan, A.I.R. 1976 SCC 190.
Page | 6
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; the Customs
Act, 1962; the Prevention of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential
Commodities Act, 1980; the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 etc. In recent times, the
emphasis is on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offender as a self-sufficient and useful
member of society, without subjecting him to the deleterious effects of jail life. This relates to the
measure of probation, which may be used by the courts as an alternative and is increasingly being
used.
3. OBJECT OF PROBATION
a. The object of probation is to bring lawbreakers and anti-social persons into willing
cooperation with the community of which he is a member, thus giving him security
which he needs and social protection against his attacks on person or property.
b. The function of probation is to effect improvement in the character of the offender
and permanent rehabilitation and reformation of the offender.
c. Probation involves molding the individual’s habits in a more constructive way.
d. It’s a substitute for imprisonment. Punishment will not serve the purpose in all cases
of offenders.
e. The object is that an accused person who is convicted of a crime should be given a
chance of reformation which he would lose by being incarcerated by prison.
It was settled law that nobody can claim benefit under PO Act as a matter of right. It was observed
in State of Sikkim v. Dorjee Sherpa6 that decisions reported in various cases7 have also been
referred to contend that the Court should not take technical views in such 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 offenses.
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 the victim of
circumstances because of an undesirable company and other evil influences available to such
6
1998 CriLJ 2685.
7
Masarullah v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1983 SC 654; Aitah Chander v. State of A.P., 1981 (Supp) SCC 17.
Page | 7
young generation. Provisions of Probation of Offenders Act,1958 normally cannot be applied to
Habitual offenders.8
Section 4 is similar to subsections (1) and (7) of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 which are stated as follows:
(1) When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence
punishable fine, or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person
under twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not Punishable
with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the
offender, if it, appears to the court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the
age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence
was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of
good conduct, 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 find be of’ good behavior:
Provided that where the first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not
specially empowered by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that the powers
conferred by this section should be exercised, he shall record his opinion to that effect. and
submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class forwarding the accuses to or
taking, bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in
the manner provided by sub-section (2).
The court, before directing the release of an offender under sub-section (1) shall be satisfied that
an offender or his surety (if any) has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place for
8
Kamroonissa v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 2117
Page | 8
which the court acts or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named for the
observance of the conditions.
"Section 360 of Cr.P.C. relates to person not under 21 years of age convicted for an offence
punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of 7 years or less, to any person
under 21 years of age or any woman convicted of an offence not punishable with sentence
of death or imprisonment for life. The scope of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act is
much wider. It applies to any person found guilty of having committed an offence which is
not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Section 360, Cr.P.C. does not provide for
any role for Probation Officers in assisting the Courts in relation to supervision and other
matters while in Probation of Offenders Act does make such a provision."
The two statutes with such significant differences could not be intended to co-exist at the same
time in the same area as such a coexistence would lead to anomalous results. Further, by virtue of
Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, it is clear that where the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 have been brought into force, the provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. would
be wholly inapplicable.
The Supreme Court in Chhanni v. State of U.P.10 reiterated that enforcement of Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 in particular area excludes the applicability of provisions of Section 360 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the scope of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is
much wider than that of Section 360, Cr.P.C., which relates only to persons not under the age of
21 years, convicted for offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment up to 7 years, any
woman convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
9
AIR 2008 SC 383
10
AIR 2006 SC 3051.
Page | 9
4.3 Missing Aspects in 360 Cr.P.C.
Section 360, Cr.P.C. does not provide any role for Probation Officers in assisting the Courts in
relation to supervision and other matters while Probation of Offenders Act under Section 13 does
provide for it. Further, Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act states that a person released
on probation shall not suffer any disqualification attached to conviction of an offender under any
law, but Section 360 of Cr.P.C. does not contain any such provision. Therefore, by virtue of Section
8(1) of the General Clauses Act, where the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure will not be applicable.
A probation officer shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions, as may be prescribed,—
(a) inquire, in accordance with any directions of a court, into the circumstances or home
surroundings of any person accused of an offence with a view to assist the court in
determining the most suitable method of dealing with him and submit reports to the court.
(b) supervise probationers and other persons placed under his supervision and, where
necessary, endeavor to find them suitable employment.
(c) advise and assist offenders in the payment of compensation or costs ordered by the
Court.
(d) advise and assist, in such cases and in such manner as may be prescribed, persons who
have been released under section 4; and
As per Section 5 of the PO Act, the court can direct the offender(s) to pay compensation for any
reasonable loss or injury caused to any person during the commission of offence. The amount paid
can be recovered as per Sec 386 & 387 of the Code. There is no such provision under Section 360
of Cr.P.C.
Page | 10
4.5 Power to Amend Bond
As per Section 8 of the PO Act the court can alter the bond order within three years from the date
of the order and the bond can be discharged at the discretion of the court after an application made
by the probation officer on good conduct. There are no such powers allotted to court under the
Cr.P.C.
360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition.—(1) When any
person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine
only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under
twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death
or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it
appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character
or antecedents of the offender, . . .
The abovementioned subclause in Section 360 makes distinction and classification on the basis of
age and gender. However, there has been no classification or distinction made in the PO Act. It
merely talks about probation being provided to anyone other than offences where the punishment
of lifetime or death penalty has been awarded.
“Provided that where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class
not specially empowered by the High Court . . .”
The abovementioned proviso of Section 360 (1) of Cr.P.C. limits the probation to only first time
offenders. However, no such limitation has been put under Probation Offenders Act and can be
awarded to offenders subject to certain conditions.
Provided that where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not
specially empowered by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that the powers
conferred by this section should be exercised, he shall record his opinion to that effect, and
submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, forwarding the accused to, or
Page | 11
taking bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in
the manner provided by sub-section (2).
The section limits the powers of second-class magistrate whereas there is no such restriction under
the PO Act. The PO Act is wider in its scope and application and doesn’t put any limitations.
Section 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure: Order to release on probation of good conduct or after
admonition.
(10) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 (20 of 1958), or the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960) or any other law for the time
being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders.
Section 562 of the Code not to apply in certain areas. Subject to the provisions of section
18 section 562 of the Code shall cease to apply to the States or parts thereof in which this
Act is brought into force.
The principle of harmonious construction is a thumb rule of interpretation which establishes that
every enactment should be read as a whole and interpreted as per its legislative intent.
Interpretation has to be done in such a manner that conflict between two statutes or their provisions
is avoided. Thus, a construction which makes one portion of the enactment a dead letter should be
avoided since harmonization is not equivalent to destruction.
Section 19 of this Act lays down that, subject to the provisions of Section 18, Section 562 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 shall cease to apply to the States or parts in which the Probation
Act is brought into force. Old Code came to be repealed and replaced by the Code and Section 360
of the Code is the corresponding provision to Section 562 in the Old Code. In 1974, the Code of
Criminal Procedure was recast and was freshly enacted as the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
It contains Section 360 that was framed by consolidating the provisions of Section 562(1), 380,
562(1)A, 562(2), 562(3), 562(4)563(1), 563(2), 564(1) & 564(2) of the old Code. Sub-section 10
Page | 12
of Section 360 of the Code made it clear that the provisions of that Section would have no effect
on the provisions of the Act But Section 360 in its new form gave rise to a little doubt.
Section 360 of the new Code was not simply a reproduction of Section 562 of the earlier Code. It
incorporated Section 380 as well as Sections 562(1) A. 563 and 564 of the earlier Code. A question,
therefore, arose whether Section 19 of the Act would apply equally to Section 360 of the new
Code. The controversy was set at rest at an early stage and there appears to be a judicial consensus
on the issue. Practically, all the High Court’s took the view that Section 360 of the new Code shall
have no application in States/areas of a State where the Act had come into force.
In Bishnu Deo Shaw v. State of West Bengal,11 the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that Section 360
of the Code re-enacts in substance Section 562 of the Old Code. To quote from the judgment:
“Section 360 of the 1973 code re-enacts, in substance, Section 562 of the 1898 Code....”
In Chhanni v.State of U.P.12 observed and held that where the provisions of the Probation Act are
applicable the employment of Section 360 of the Code is not to be made. In cases of such
application, it would be an illegality resulting in highly undesirable consequences, which the
legislature, who gave birth to the Probation Act and the Code wanted to obviate. Yet the legislature
in its wisdom has obliged the Court under Section 361 of the Code to apply one of the other
beneficial provisions; be it Section 360 of the Code or the provisions of the Probation Act. It is
only by providing special reasons that their applicability can be withheld by the Court. The
comparative elevation of the provisions of the Probation Act are further noticed in sub-section-
(10) of Section 360 of the Code which makes it clear that nothing in the said Section shall affect
the provisions of the Probation Act.
Those provisions have a paramount of their own in the respective areas where they are applicable.
Two statutes with such significant differences could not be intended to co-exist at the same time
in the same area. Such co-existence would lead to anomalous results. The intention to retain the
provisions of Section 360 of the Code and the provisions of the Probation Act as applicable at the
same time in a given area cannot be gathered from the provisions of Section 360 or any other
provision of the Code. Therefore, by virtue of Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, where the
11
AIR 1979 SC 964
12
AIR 2006 SC 3051.
Page | 13
provisions of the Act have been brought into force, the provisions of Section 360 of the Code are
wholly inapplicable. Enforcement of Probation Act in some particular area excludes the
applicability of the provisions of Sections 360, 361 of the Code in that area.
The Supreme Court, reiterated in Ramesh Dass v. Raghunath,13 that release of an accused charged
with commission of an offence under Section 326 r/w 149 IPC on probation under Section 360
IPC would be improper as the offence is punishable with life imprisonment. Therefore, provisions
of the Probation of Offenders Act would be applicable in the case. The respondents in this case
were convicted under Section 326/149 and Section 325/149 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
and sentenced to 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. On appeal, the
Additional District Judge, Karnal reduced the sentence to three years.
The State appealed against this order and the High Court quashed the judgment of A.D.J. and
restored the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and directed release of the accused persons
on probation under Section 360 Cr. P.C. and enhanced the amount of fine to Rs. 15,000/-. It was
also directed that 50 per cent of the fine shall be payable to the injured victim.
In appeal against the judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that since the Probation
of Offenders Act was applicable in the State of Haryana, the provisions of Section 360 Cr. P.C.
relating to release of offender on probation would not be applicable. Further, Section 360 (1) of
Cr. P.C. itself provides that the provisions of this section would not apply if the offence were
punishable with life imprisonment. The case was therefore remitted to the High Court.
It is significant to note that the power under the Probation of Offenders Act can be exercised by
any magistrate whereas such power under Section 360 Cr. P.C. is restricted to the Judicial
Magistrate First Class. However, Second Class Magistrate may also exercise the power to release
an offender on probation if he is specially authorized by the High Court in that behalf.
13
Appeal (Crl.) 313 of 2008.
Page | 14
One of the important features of the Probation Act is the provision regarding placement of the
offender under the supervision of a probation officer. But there is no such provision under Section
360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The power to grant probation under the Probation of Offenders Act is discretionary. However,
Section 6 lays down a restriction on the Court not to impose a sentence of imprisonment on
offenders below 21 years of age when found guilty of offences not punishable with imprisonment
for life. The Section provides:
“When any person under 21 years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence
punishable with imprisonment (but not with life imprisonment), 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
character of the offender, it would not deal with him under Section 3 or Section 4 (release
after admonition or release on probation of good conduct) and if the court passes any
sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it would record its reasons for doing so.”
It has been held that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the young offender below 21 years
of age without compliance with the aforesaid provision of Section 6 would be wholly illegal.
The Supreme Court in Gulzar v. State of Madhya Pradesh14 clarified that benefit of probation
under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 cannot co-exist at the same time in same area. The scope of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act is much wider as it applies to any person found guilty of having
committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Again, Section 360 Cr. P.C. does not provide for any role of probation officers in assisting the
courts in relation to supervision and other matters whereas the Probation of Offenders Act does
contain such a provision. As provided by Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, where the
provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act have been applied, the provisions of Section 360 Cr.
P.C. would be wholly inapplicable.
14
Appeal (Crl.) 7 of 2007.
Page | 15
In Bishnu Deo v. State of West Bengal,15 the Supreme Court held that provisions of Section 10(6)
and 10(7) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which were inserted by the SITA
(Amendment) Act, 1978 constrain the Court from imposing sentence of imprisonment on first
female offenders found guilty of having committed an offence under Section 7 and Section 8 of
the Act unless it records reasons for doing so, on the basis of probation officer’s report and other
materials which justifies female’s imprisonment.
After the enactment of law of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, most of the States introduced
probation law for their offenders. Section 18 of the Act, however, provides that nothing in the Act
shall affect the provisions of the under mentioned Act:
(2) The existing State laws relating to juvenile delinquents and Borstal institutions.
(3) The provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; and
Section 14(a) of the Probation of Offenders Act contains a mandatory provision that whenever the
court, in its opinion considers it reasonable to admit an adult offender above the age of 21 years to
the benefit of release on probation, it must first secure a pre-sentence report from the Probation
Officer. This report may not be necessary in case the offender is below twenty-one years of age,
but if at all the report is submitted by the probation officer, it must be taken into consideration.
The pre-sentence report prepared by the probation officer usually contains the details about the
antecedents of the offender, his life history, family background, marital status, educational
standard, social and economic background and the circumstances which led him to commit the
offence. The report is to be treated as a confidential document by the court.
After receiving a favorable report from the probation officer about the prospective probationer, the
presiding Judge determines the exact period of probation for the delinquent. The period of
15
1979 AIR 964.
Page | 16
probation may vary from offender to offender depending on his potentiality for readjustment to
normal life in society.
Thus, for some probationers a period of six months or so may suffice while for others even a period
of a year or two may be insufficient. It has been generally accepted that keeping the delinquent
under supervision for an indeterminate period until his rehabilitation, seems to be the best policy
in this regard. In India, the maximum limit for the release of an offender on probation is three
years.
The probationer can be set at liberty any time during the period of probation as soon as he is
considered fit for release in the opinion of the probation officer. But this provision has been
criticized for two obvious reasons. Firstly, leaving the probationer entirely at the mercy of the
probation officer has its own disadvantages; and secondly, it creates resentment among the
probationers as they feel that they are being unduly discriminated by the probation authorities.
Page | 17
8. CONCLUSION
It can be said that the measure of alternative punishment i.e., probation and the objective of the
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 the context of existing
social conditions to achieve the ultimate objective to reclaim back those offenders to an orderly
society. The purpose of Probation Offenders Act was to streamline and provide some structure to
Section 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure and make it more accessible for everyone. According
to Section 18 of POA read with section 8(1), General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 360 of the Code
would cease to apply to the States or parts thereof in which the POA is brought into force.
However, the offender can be still released after admonition or on probation of good conduct under
sections 3 and 4 POA which is wider in its scope than the provisions of section 360. In that case
also, the court will have to use discretion on the same lines as in cases under section 360.
The point of difference between Probation Offenders Act and Section 360 of CrPC are that PO
Act provides for Probation Officers who are authorized with enforcing proper rules and law
relating to probation. It also provides for a amendable bond structure as well as appeal system. The
PO Act expands the power provided under Section 360 of the Code by removing the limitation
over Second-Class magistrate to try the case. However, due to the existence of Section 360
separately even after enactment of the act leads to disparity and conflict of laws which can be seen
in plethora of judgements divided over the use of Section 360 conflicting with Probation Offenders
Act. Section 360 and Probation Offenders Act are suggested to complement each other and work
in harmony. Generally, the court use and limit Section 360 to mostly cases of first offender and
PO Act compliments it by allowing more than just first offenders to a certain degree.
However, the existence of two different laws on same subject matter will always be an issue for
contention. It has and will lead to conflicting opinions resulting in confusion and delay in justice.
The purpose of Probation will be defeated if the person is stuck in the web of confusion built over
differing opinion and conflict of laws.
Page | 18
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
a. S.N. Mishra, “The Code of Criminal Procedure” (Central Law Publication,
2020).
b. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, “The Code of Criminal Procedure” (LexisNexis, 23rd
edn 2019).
B. Statutes
i. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
ii. The Probation Offenders Act, 1958.
C. Websites
www.lexisnexis.com
www.livelaw.com
www.lawoctopus.com
www.scoobserver.com
www.heinonline.com
www.jstor.com
Page | 19