III Year B.A., LL. B (Div.

-D and E) – Semester-V (2022)

2nd -Internal Assessment – CrPC

Situation Based Proble

NAME: Dhanvi Shukla

DIVISION: D

PRN: 20010125336

COURSE: BA LL.B. (H)

BATCH: 2020-2025
Q. A, a fresh commerce graduate from one of the reputed colleges in Pune and a very active social
worker in his ward. He had been into multiple social activities since his childhood. One day he went
to Nashik for his friend’s wedding. While coming back he needed money hence they have borrowed
money from the host family with intention to not to return the same. He did the same with multiple
friends and due to that his friends keep hands distance from him in financial transactions. While
coming back from Nashik to Pune, he committed the offence of Pick Pocketing in the bus of one of
the old passengers. Due to the huge rush in the bus he could not be caught at the time of the
offence. But, once the bus reached Stargate Bus stand, the conductor and driver individually checked
the belongings of all the passengers and they could trace the lost wallet with money with A. Now, A
is handed over to the Stargate Police. Charge sheet is filed in the Shivajinagar Court and the
prosecution have proved the case beyond reasonable doubts before the court.

In this case, can A get the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958? If yes, how? And if not,
why cannot he take benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958? Explain in detail with relevant
legal provisions

Ans.-

Introduction

In certain cases, courts may grant an alternative to prison which is known probation. It occurs
when a court suspends a person's sentence and releases them to live in the society under the
supervision of a probation officer or not. The Central Probation Act was passed in 1958,
ushering in the system in India. Although Section 562 of the 1898 Criminal Procedure Code
allowed for the release of an offender on probation, it only applied to first-time offenders and
juvenile delinquents. While earlier there was no central provision for the granting of
probation and only first class magistrates had the authority to grant the same, gradually a few
states came up with their own laws on probation. Eventually the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 came into power centrally in India.

Relevant Provisions

Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 talks about the powers of court to release
certain offenders after admonition. According to this act, when any person is found guilty of
having committed an offence punishable under Section 379, 380, 381, 404 or 420 under the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than 2
years under the IPC and no previous conviction against him, the court may on the basis of the
nature of the offence as well as the character of the offender, release him on probation of
good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 after admonishing him
in court. The aim and objective of this act is to give the offender a chance to improve their
conduct without having to go to jail where they might associate with hardened criminals.
Instead of sending them to jail, these first time offenders that may have committed petty
crimes, are admonished by the court which is meant to be a firm rebuke on their conduct and
are released on probation for a maximum of 3 years that may be revoked in case they commit
any such crime during that period.

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 talks about the release of the offender on
the basis of good conduct. It is not applicable for offences that may be punished with death or
imprisonment for life. In order to release the offender on probation for good behaviour, the
court may issue a supervision order. A year is the maximum length of the supervision term.
In this circumstance, the probation officer is required to watch over the person for such a
length of time. The probation officer's name needs to be mentioned in the supervising order.

The offender can be ordered by the court to sign a bond, with or without sureties, promising
to show up and receive their penalty when required during that time, which should not be
longer than three years. The defendant might be released from custody if they behave well.
When issuing a supervision order, the court must explain its terms and conditions to the
offender and may impose any necessary conditions. The perpetrator should receive this
supervision order right away.

Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 talks about the age restriction on
imprisonment for offenders. According to this clause, offenders under the age of 21 are not
detained in jails where the crime did not merit a sentence of life in prison or death. Prior to
using Section 6, it's important to keep the following in mind:

The court must request the probation officer's report when the accused is under the age of 21.
If the court determines that the offender is not suitable for admonition (Section 3), release on
probation for good behaviour (Section 4), or both, the court may sentence the offender, who
is under 21 years old, to imprisonment. However, the court cannot sentence the offender
without stating its reasons for doing so. Whether or not Sections 3 or 4 of the Act apply must
be determined by the Court. The report of the probation officer must be requested by the
court for this reason. Therefore, if the offender is under the age of 21, the Probation Officer's
report is required. The court considers the nature of the offence and the character, physical
and mental condition of the offender before making any decision.
 Whether A should get the benefit of probation?

To determine whether or not A will be granted the benefit of probation, it is first necessary to
determine whether or not he is applicable for the same. According to the aforementioned
provisions, the following are the pre-requisites for granting of probation:

1. First time offender for crimes listed under Section 379, 380, 381, 404 or 420 –
According to the given facts, it is clear that the crime committed by A is that of theft
listed under Section 379 and no other instance of him committing the same has been
mentioned although he has a knack of not returning borrowed money.
2. Offence should not be punishable by life imprisonment or death – the benefit of
probation is only granted for petty crimes and not for heinous crimes that might
warrant hardened punishment like life imprisonment or death. In this case, the offence
is of theft and is punishable by a maximum of three years only. In the case of Smt.
Devki v. State of Haryana1, it was observed that Section 4 would not be extended to
the abominable culprit who was found guilty of abducting a teenage girl and forcing
her to sexual submission with a commercial motive.
3. Character of Offender and Probation Report – Before the granting of probation,
the courts are supposed to scrutinise the character of the offender on the basis of the
probation report that is meant to be kept confidential. While the facts of the case
mention that A has a reputation when it comes to not returning borrowed money, the
offence of theft was only committed for the first time. However, this tendency to not
return money does go against his character and weakens his case.
4. Offenders under the age of 21 years of age – the court tries to give the benefit of
doubt to offenders under the age of 21 years of age so they can turn their life around
in a positive manner. A probation report is deemed mandatory when it comes to
offenders under the age of 21 and the courts may resort to admonition only (Section
3) and may release the offender on grounds of probation of good conduct (Section 4)
unless and until he is a repeat offender with a proven questionable character. In the
case of Daulat Ram v State of Haryana2, it was held that the aim of this Section was
to protect the youth. The juvenile offenders would not be sent to jail if their crime was

1
AIR 1979 SC 1948
2
1972 SC 2434
 not as serious as to punish them with life imprisonment or death. Therefore, the
provision should be liberally construed keeping in view the spirit embodied therein.

Thus, from the aforementioned conditions, it is my judgment that A should be granted the
benefit of probation since he is a first time offender and hasn’t committed a heinous crime by
committing theft under Section 379 of the IPC. He is also a fresh commerce graduate which
probably means that he is under the age of 21. This means that the court might further give
him the benefit of the doubt due to his young age and despite his known tendency to not
return money that he borrows from his relatives or friends, the court should just admonish
him and release him on probation on the condition of good conduct. In the case of
Kamroonissa v State of Maharshtra3, the court denied probation to a habitual offender who
was charged the theft of gold. In the case of A while he has a questionable character when it
comes to returning money, he is not known as a habitual offender when it comes to theft and
should be granted probation.

3
AIR 1974 SC 2117