1

PROBATION AND PAROLE NOTES

NAME :- SAAD GAVANDI

ROLL NO :- 12

SUBJECT PROFESSOR :- ADV.PRANAV GURAV

UNIVERSITY :- SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES @

SANJAY GHODAWAT UNIVERSITY,KOLHAPUR
2
 3

UNIT 1

INTRODUCTION: CRIME

An action committed or omitted which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law, is a crime. Crime is an unlawful act
that is forbidden and punished by the State or the law. In other words, anything which is injurious to public welfare is a crime.

Definition of Crime According to Renowned Jurists

• According to Bentham, “offences are whatever the legislature has prohibited for good or for bad reasons.”

• According to Austin, “a wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party and his representatives is a civil
injury; a wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or his subordinates is a crime.”

ELEMENTS OF CRIME

The Chief elements necessary to constitute a crime are:

1. Human Being

The first element of a crime is a human being. Any wrongful act to be called a crime must be done by a human being. There must
be a human being under a legal obligation to act in a particular way, and it must also be capable of being punished.

2. Mens Rea

The second essential element of a crime is mens rea or guilty mind or evil intent. Mens rea refers to the mental element that is
necessary for a particular crime. Any wrongful act committed by a human being cannot be called a crime if committed without
evil intent. There must be an evil intent while doing an act.

There is a well-known maxim– ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.’ It means ‘the act itself does not make a man guilty unless
his intentions were so.’ From this maxim, there came another maxim- ‘actus me invito factus non est mens actus,’ which means
‘an act done by me against my will is not my act at all.’

In Sherras vs. De Rutzen (1895), the doctrine followed by court states that mens rea is an essential ingredient of every offence,
except in three cases:

• Cases not criminal in any real sense but which in the public interest are prohibited under a penalty, e.g. Revenue acts
• Public Nuisance
• Cases criminal in form but which are really only a summary mode of enforcing a civil right.

3. Actus Reus

The third element of the crime is actus reus. The criminal intent to be punishable must be obvious in some voluntary act or
omission. As per Kenny, ‘actus reus’ is such a result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent. The act committed must be one
that is forbidden or punished by the law.

An act also includes omissions. A man is also held liable if some duty is imposed upon him by law, and he omits to discharge that
duty. An omission must be a breach of a legal duty.

4. Injury

Injury is the last important, or we can say the essential element of a crime. It must be caused illegally to another human being or a
body of individuals or society at large. ‘Injury’ has been defined in section 44 of the Indian Penal Code as ‘any harm whatever
illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property.’

STAGES OF CRIME

1. Intention

The intention is the first stage of any offense and is known as the mental or psycho stage. In this stage, the offender decides the
motive and decides his course or direction towards the offense. The ironical fact about this stage is that the law cannot punish the
person just for having an intention to do any illegal act.
 4

Moreover, being the mental concept, it is very difficult to judge if a person possesses any such intention. Just by having an
intention will not constitute an offense.

2. Preparation

Preparation is the second stage amongst the stages of crime. It means to arrange the necessary resources for the execution of the
intentional criminal act. Intention and preparation alone are not enough to constitute a crime. Preparation is not punishable
because in many cases the prosecution fails to prove that the preparations in the question are for the execution of the particular
crime.

3. Attempt

An attempt is a direct movement towards the execution of a crime after the preparation of the plan. According to law, a person is
guilty of an attempt to commit an offense if he/she does an act which is more than simply preparatory to the commission of the
offense. Moreover, a person is guilty of attempting to commit an offense even though the facts are such that the execution of the
offense seems to be impossible.

4. Accomplishment

The last stage in the commission of an offense is its successful completion. If the accused becomes successful in his attempt to
commit the crime, he will be guilty of the complete offense. Moreover, if his attempt is unsuccessful he will be guilty of his
attempt.

Kailash Chandra Pareek vs. State of Assam (2003), that an attempt to commit an offence is made punishable as it takes the
perpetrator very close to the contemplated crime.

In the case of Sagayam vs. State of Karnatka (2000), the Supreme Court held that if the attempt succeeds, the culprit has
committed the offence; if it fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the offence.

OTHER IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME-

1. KNOWLEDGE

Where knowledge of fact is an essential ingredient of offence, it must be distinctly proved. There are certain offences in the penal
code where the accused who commits those offences is punished irrespective of the fact whether he had knowledge or not. Where
a particular act is forbidden, the question of knowledge become immaterial.

2. INNOCENCE

The law presumes innocence until guilt is proved. The onus of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge
against the accused lies upon the prosecution. Every man is to be regarded as legally innocent until the contrary be proved.

Brij Bhushan Singh vs. Emp. (1946), the Privy Council has affirmed that suspicion however strong, is not proof.

3. MOTIVE

If a man knows that a certain consequence will follows from his act, it must be presumed in law that he intended that consequence
to take place although he may have had some quiet different ulterior motive for performing the act. The motive for the act is not a
sufficient test to determine its criminal character.

4. MISTAKE OF LAW

The maxim ignorantia juris non excusat, ignorance of law excuses no one, in its application to the criminal offences, admits of no
exception, not even in the case of a foreigner who can’t reasonably be supposed in fact to know the law of the land. It is indeed a
legal fiction to suppose that everyone knows the law of the land but it a fiction which is so basic that without it the administration
of criminal justice would come to a standstill.
 5

NATURE AND SCOPE OF CRIMINOLOGY AND SCHOOLS

WHAT IS CRIMINOLOGY?

The word ‘criminology’ was originated in the year 1890. The word has its origins from two words, Latin word ‘crimen’ which
means accusation and the Greek word ‘logia’. Put simply, criminology can be understood as the scientific study of crime as a
social phenomenon, as criminals and penal institutions.

Jurist have defined criminology in various different ways, some of the definitions are as –

Prof. Kenny: He defined criminology as the branch of criminal science which deals with crime causation, analysis and prevention
of crime.

Coleman and Norris: According to them, criminology is the analysis of nature of crime, perpetrators of crime, the cause of
crime, the formulation of criminal laws and law-enforcements and the control of criminal behavior.

IMPORTANCE OF CRIMONOLOGY

The following are the main causes of the study of Criminology:

• The criminology clears the way of study of the social system.

• It suggests the ways of elimination of criminal instincts in the society.
• Criminology tells the ways of bringing stability in human values.
• It tries to reform the criminal
• This system of study becomes helpful to the investigation officer in reaching from the point of crime to the criminal.
• Crime is a necessary evil and an ailment. Criminology suggests the ways and means of checking this evil.

SCOPE-

1. The nature and extent of crime: Criminologists examine the patterns and trends of crime, as well as the social and
economic factors that contribute to criminal behavior.
2. The causes of crime: Criminologists study the individual, social, and environmental factors that contribute to criminal
behavior, such as poverty, family dysfunction, and peer influence.
3. The consequences of crime: Criminologists investigate the impact of crime on victims, communities, and society as a
whole.
4. The criminal justice system: Criminologists examine the processes and practices of the criminal justice system,
including law enforcement, courts, and corrections.
5. Crime prevention and intervention: Criminologists develop and evaluate strategies to prevent crime and reduce
recidivism among offenders.

Nature of Criminology-

1. Criminology is, ordinarily, the science of crime and seeks to study the phenomenon of criminality in its entirety.
Criminology as a branch of knowledge is concerned with those particular conducts of individual behaviour which are
prohibited by society.
2. Criminology consists of two main branches - criminal biology, which investigates causes of criminality found in the
mental and physical constitution of the deviant, 'and criminal sociology which deals with enquiries into the effect of
environment as a cause of criminality.
3. Criminology, penology and criminal law are inter-related fields. Penology deals with the custody, treatment, prevention
and control of crimes. Criminal law seeks to implement policies envisaged by criminology and penology (the formulation
of criminal policy essentially depends on crime causations and factors correlated therewith).
4. The science of criminology aims at taking up case to case study of different crimes and suggest measures to 'reform' the
offenders. Liberalisation of punishment for affording greater opportunities for rehabilitation of offenders has been
accepted as the ultimate object of penal justice.
5. The most significant aspect of criminology is its concern for crime and criminals. It presupposes the study of criminal
with basic assumption that no one is born criminal. It treats reformation as the ultimate object of punishment while
individualization (treatment accorded to each individual according to his personality) the method of it.
 6

SCHOOLS OF CRIMINOLOGY

1. Pre-Classical School

-Jeremy Bentham is considered the founder of the pre-classical school. This school, also known as the Demonological school,
existed during the 17th and 18th centuries. During this time, religion was at its peak level. Worshipping and sacrifices were
usually the prescribed method in pre-classical school.

-There was no existence of scientific explanations.

-There was a belief that there existed another part of the world that is full of evil powers, and every individual is controlled by the
supreme power of that world. Therefore, the people are influenced by those evil powers, due to which the person loses their sense
of morality and then commits crimes.

Nature Of Punishments During Pre-Classical School

During the pre-classical school nature of punishments was severe such as whipping, ordeal by hot water, burning, ordeal by hot
oil, etc. the main aim behind the infliction of such harsh punishment was to stop an individual from following a path of demons
and to urge an individual to follow a path of the divine. The offender was exposed to cruel treatment in order to avoid the
repetition of offenses. Though this approach was unscientific and inhuman it was accepted in that period. They were keen on the
principles in which they believed i.e the sovereign authority of God.

Indian Perspective

The Pre-Classical School of Criminology is rooted in ancient Indian texts and scriptures that contain principles of justice and
punishment. This school focuses on the concept of dharma, which refers to the moral and ethical duties of individuals towards
society, and the idea of karma, which highlights the belief in the consequences of one’s actions.

This is one of the schools of criminology that emphasises the role of religion, customs, and traditions in shaping the social control
mechanisms and maintaining law and order in society.

Relevant Provisions

Manusmriti: Manusmriti, an ancient Indian text, is considered one of the important sources of principles of justice and
punishment in the Pre-Classical School of criminology. It contains provisions related to social norms, customs, and punishments
for various crimes, reflecting the emphasis on dharma and karma.

Contribution
The Pre-Classical School of Criminology has contributed to the understanding of crime and punishment in ancient Indian society.
It highlights the significance of social norms, customs, and ethical responsibilities in maintaining law and order.

While not directly influencing contemporary criminology in India, the concepts of dharma and karma continue to shape cultural
and religious beliefs related to crime and justice.

2. Classical School of Criminology

This school was propounded in the 18th century. This school was propounded by Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham, and Romilly.
This school is totally the opposite of the pre-classical school. The belief on which this school worked was that whatever a man
does, he does it of his own will. He is gifted with a sharp mind. Hence, the aspect that any external power is working or; that he is
under some influence is something that leads to impracticability and the same was rejected by this school. The firm belief was that
when a man performs his deeds, whether good or bad, he does it of his own will.

The premise of this school even said a really important point; the punishment should be decided according to the nature of the
wrongful act. The more serious and heinous the wrongful act or crime, the more serious the punishment.

Cesare Beccaria

Cesare Beccaria is the ‘Father of Criminology’. Cesare Beccaria is an aristocrat and his thinking on the punishment system in
Europe was irrational. Beccaria is a major contributor to the Criminal Law of Europe in the eighteenth century.

Beccaria believed in three ideology that:

a. Every individual has free will in doing an act and should not be restricted;

b. Every individual acts rationally for his wants and goods, thus law should be protective of an individual.

c. Every individual’s behavior is predictable and so, it can be predicted and controlled.

The classical school developed three main theories, which are still in use nowadays. They are as follows:
 7

The classical school developed three main theories which are still in use nowadays. They are as follows:

• Rational Choice Theory

According to this theory, crimes were committed as a result of conscious decisions. Individuals are said to decide to commit the
crime out of their own free consent. Individual people may choose to commit an offence whenever the benefits exceed the
expected costs of breaking the law.

• Theory of Routine Activities

According to this concept, the routine activity theory has three important components: a focused violator, a desirable specifically
target, and a lack of competent guardian. It is thought that a person’s daily routine activities influence the likelihood of an
attractive prospect encountering a wrongdoer in a circumstance in which there was no efficient guardian present. Changes in
society’s everyday routines can have an impact on crime rate increases.

• Theory of Situational Choice

The rational choice concept is the foundation for the situation-specific choice theory. The offence is committed based on situation-
specific constraints and possibilities, according to this theory. In simpler terms, it means that a person’s actions are influenced by
their surroundings. Because of the circumstances, the offender acts in a certain manner. It’s highly unlikely that he’d act
differently in a different scenario.

3. Neo-Classical School

After the emergence of the classical school, the neo-classical school gained prominence as it was realized that the classical school
is more confined to a historical and literature-based approach. Further, it explains crime as a free will choice of a person i.e.,
criminals make a rational choice regarding the commission of a crime.

However, neo-classical schools focus more on scientific study by recognizing the mental aspects of an offender. According to neo
classical school of thought, psychology plays an important role in the commission of a crime.

Further, they added that factors such as the personality of an individual, previous life history, character, and social and economic
background should be taken into consideration in assessing the guilt of the accused. It is the neo-classical school of thought only
which provided a pathway toward the origin of the jury system in criminal jurisprudence.

The main tenets of the neo – classical school of criminology are as:

i. Neo-classists approached the study of criminology on scientific lines by recognizing that certain extenuating situations or
mental disorders deprive a person of his normal capacity to control his conduct. Thus, they justified mitigation of equal
punishment in cases of certain psychopathic offenders.

ii. Neo-classists were the first to bring out a distinction between the first-time offenders and recidivist. They supported
individualization of offender and treatment methods which required the punishment to suit the psychopathic
circumstances of the accused.

iii. Thought the neo-classists recommended lenient treatment for irresponsible offenders, they certainly believed that every
offender, whether responsible or irresponsible, should be kept segregated from the society.

iv. It is through this school that attention of criminologists was drawn for the first time towards the fact that all crimes do
have a cause.

v. Neo-classists adopted subjective approach to criminology and concentrated their attention on the conditions under which
an individual commits crime.

Punishments Offered Under Neo-Classical School

Neo-Classical Scholars differentiate in the case of punishment inflicted on an individual based on a psychological understanding
of a person. It takes into consideration the mental state of a person while committing a crime. Thus, they justified the mitigation of
equal punishment in cases of certain psychopathic offenders. Commenting on this point, GILLIN observed that “neo-classists
represent a reaction against the severity of classical view of equal punishment for the same offence.”
 8

Positivist School

Positivist school was founded in the 19th century. This school is also known as Italian school. It rejected the free will theory of the
classical school. The three main exponents of this school were:

• Cesare Lombroso

• Enrico Ferri

• Raffaele Garofalo

Lombroso’s Theory

A person who commits a crime is a born criminal. The theory focused on the biological characteristics of the commission of a
crime. It is also believed that criminals are less sensitive. According to this school, the criminals were divided into three
categories:

• Born criminal: The criminals in whom the criminal behaviour is genetically transferred.
• Insane criminal: The criminal who is of unsound mind and mind is not in a position to understand the circumstances
of the act; that what is wrong or right.
• Criminoids: The criminals that have more of an inferiority complex of biological structure.

Enrico Ferri’s Theory

This theory challenged Lomboroso’s theory. According to Enrico Ferri’s theory, emotional, social and geographical factors are
also responsible. Enrico Ferri divided the criminals into five categories:

• Born criminal
• Occasional criminal: The criminals who occasionally commit the crime due to circumstances.
• Passionate criminal: The criminals who commit crimes out of their passion.
• Insane criminal
• Habitual criminal: The criminals who are habitual of committing crimes.

Garofalo’s Theory

This theory rejected the above two theories. Garofalo’s theory divided the criminals into four categories:

• Endemic criminals: The criminals who commit murder.

• Violent criminals: They are those criminals who immediately get influenced by others and commit the crime. They
are of violent nature (short-tempered).
• Criminals lacking in sentiment of probity: The criminals who lack emotional feelings.
• Lustful criminals: The criminals who commit rape.

The Positivist schools attempted to define scientific principles for the measurement and qualification of criminal behavior. Science
is the core aspect of this school which negates the logical and divine concepts unlike the pre-classical school of thought. It deals
with the major aspect of scientific Socialism. Thus, it is divided into-

1. Biological positivism

Biological positivism had taken into consideration the elements like physical features and it put emphasis on the fact that the real
cause of criminality lay in the anthropological features of criminals. In short, it focuses on the anthropological and biological
aspects of the offender toward the commission of a crime. This school tries to establish a symbiotic relationship between
criminality and the structure and functioning of the brain.

2. Psychological Positivism

If Biological Positivism takes into consideration the physical aspects of crime, psychological positivism considers the mental
aspect of crime. It looks at determinations, thoughts, reactions and emotional intelligence in criminal behavior.

He was Sigmund Freud who established the psychoanalytical model in which he discussed the three sets of interacting forces like
ID, EGO and SUPEREGO. These are the three elements in a human personality that urge them to behave in a certain manner.

3. Social Positivism

Social positivism considers the impact of crime on society as a whole. It’s another name for the scientific study of society or the
social world. He was August Compte who developed a positivist approach to the positivist school of thought. It deals with the fact
that society is like a physical world and functions based on a general set of laws.
 9

4. Sociological School of Criminology

The sociological school of criminology focuses on the social and structural factors that contribute to crime and criminal behaviour.
It examines how social institutions, such as family, education, and the economy, influence individuals’ behaviour and their
likelihood of engaging in criminal activities.

The sociological school argues that crime is a result of social inequalities, social disorganisation, and the breakdown of social
bonds.

Key Concepts

Social Structure: The sociological school emphasises the role of social structure, including social class, poverty, and inequality,
in shaping individuals’ behaviour and their propensity to commit crimes. It highlights how social inequalities and structural factors
can contribute to crime and criminal behaviour.

Social Disorganisation: The sociological school examines how the breakdown of social institutions and social disorganisation in
communities can contribute to crime. It focuses on how factors such as neighbourhood characteristics, community cohesion, and
social control can influence crime rates.

Social Bonds: The sociological school emphasises the importance of social bonds, such as family, school, and community, in
preventing crime. It argues that individuals with strong social bonds are less likely to engage in criminal activities.

Clinical School of Criminology

There was a greater emphasis on emotional aspect of human nature with development in the field of psychology. This newly
equipped knowledge enabled modern criminologists to understand the criminal behavior of offenders in its proper perspective.

Prof. Gillin, therefore, remarked that the theory of modern clinical school on the side of crimogenesis presupposes offender as a
product of his biological inheritance conditioned in his development by experiences of life to which he has been exposed from
infancy up to the time of commission of crime.

Thus, clinical school takes into account variety of factors. It also suggests that criminals who do not respond in a positive manner
to correctional methods must be punished with imprisonment or transportation for life. The victims of social conditions should be
subjected to correctional methods such as parole, probation, reformatories, open-air camps etc. The main theme of clinical school
is that personality of man is a combination of internal and external factors therefore, punishment should depend upon the
personality of the accused.
 10

CAUSES OF CRIME

INTRODUCTION

Crime is essentially an act that is punishable by law. It doesn’t occur owing to a single cause but is an extremely complex
happening that is influenced by the culture of the place in which it takes place.

CAUSES OF CRIME

Poverty

Poverty is one of the main reasons for crime. Countries with high rates of economic deprivation tend to witness higher crime rates
than other countries. Since people do not have the means to secure a living in the right ways, they invest their time in criminal
activities since they are not only an easy means to get what they want but also do not require any other prerequisite talents.

Drugs

Crime and drug abuse are closely related. A person under the influence tends to indulge in criminal activities that they may have
not indulged in otherwise. The main problem arises when they get addicted to the drugs and believe they require it to sustain
themselves. In such a situation, drug addicts are ready to go to any extent to procure these illegal substances.

Politics

The interrelation between politics and crime is overlooked many times. This is problematic as many people have engaged in
criminal activities while dealing with political issues. There are umpteen politicians with a criminal record. Any political dispute,
however insignificant, usually leads to rampant violence involving mobs. This not only exposes youth to criminal activities but
also puts the lives of various citizens at risk.

Background

Oftentimes the background and family conditions of a criminal can be attributed to the reason behind their crimes. When people
believe that they are responsible to provide for their family and they are unable to do so owing to lack of opportunities, lack of
education or other such issues that handicap them, they resort to crime.

Unemployment

The lack of employment opportunities is an issue faced by developing and developed countries alike. Naturally, this leaves the
youth frustrated as despite spending a lot of time and money on their education they still find it tough to get a good job. This leads
to a feeling of resentment towards the system in the minds of many youngsters who then rebel and resort to crimes early on in
their lives.

Unfair justice system

The flawed justice system is another major contributor to crimes. When people believe that they are not given their due and are
unfairly treated by the system itself, they harbour feelings of resentment towards it and start to rebel. This involves them engaging
in criminal activities and doing the opposite of what is expected of them.

THEORIES OF CAUSATION OF CRIME

Biological theories

The interaction of various biological factors can be attributed to the occurrence of criminal matters. These biological factors refer
to neurological, psychological, hereditary, and even biochemical elements that lead to crime.

Economic theories

Many social researchers were of the opinion that crime is heavily influenced by economic factors like employment, education,
financial conditions, and the like. It is one of the most common side effects of social exclusion.

Crime is heavily influenced by wages and the employment status of the people in question. Economists were of the opinion that
educational programmes are the efficient way to combat the issue of rising crime in a world full of depleting jobs and wages.
 11

Psychological theories

Psychological theories of crime are extremely complex in nature. They focus on the personal relations of the criminal. These
theories try to demonstrate the evolution of offending from when the offender was a child to when they become an adult.
Psychologists are of the opinion that offensive behaviour is akin to unfriendly behavior.

Political theories

All methods of crime are said to be in accordance with one political philosophy or the other. So, all orientations of crime are the
consequence of some political theory. Social disputes and governmental relations are important constituents of crime. People with
different and sometimes conflicting political theories tend to associate crime with different factors.

MEASURES TO CURB CRIME

Strengthening law enforcement: Improving the quality and training of police personnel, equipping them with modern
technology and equipment, and increasing the number of police personnel can help to reduce crime.

Creating awareness among the public: Educating the public about the consequences of committing crimes and the importance
of reporting suspicious activity can help to deter criminal behavior.

Community policing: Promoting community policing initiatives can help to improve communication and trust between law
enforcement and the community, which can lead to better crime prevention and response.

Improving the criminal justice system: Streamlining the criminal justice system, including the investigation and prosecution of
crimes, can lead to more effective deterrence and punishment of offenders.

Addressing social issues: Addressing social issues such as poverty, unemployment, and education can help to reduce the
underlying causes of crime.

Enhancing cybersecurity: India needs to improve its cybersecurity infrastructure and increase awareness among citizens to
prevent cybercrime.
 12

UNIT 2

STRICT RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF PENAL STATUTES

INTRODUCTION

-It is a general rule that penal enactments are to be construed strictly and not extended beyond their meaning. According to
Crawford criminal and penal statutes must be strictly construed, that is they cannot be enlarged or extended by intendment,
implication, or by any equitable consideration. In other words, the language cannot be enlarged beyond the ordinary meaning of
its term in order to carry into effect the general purpose for which the statute was enacted.

-The rule of strict construction requires that the language of a stature should be so construed that no case shall be held to fall
within it which does not come within the reasonable interpretation of the statute.

-It has also been held that in construing a penal statute it is a cardinal principle that in case of doubt, the construction favourable to
the subject should be preferred.

-But these rules do not in any way affect the fundamental principles of interpretation, namely that the primary test is the language
employed in the Act and when the words are clear and plain the court is bound to accept the expressed intention of the legislature.

Maxwell’s Principles

According to Maxwell the rule of strict construction of penal statutes manifests itself in four ways—

(1) Express language is necessary for creation of criminal offences, therefore, no act is to be deemed criminal unless it is clearly
made so by words of the statute concerned. But it is not necessary that a particular penalty be specified in order that an act or
omission may constitute an offence.

(2) The words setting out the elements of an offence are to be strictly construed . And if there is any reasonable doubt or
ambiguity it will be resolved in favour of the person charged. A reasonable interpretation which will avoid the penalty must be
adopted. If there are two reasonable constructions the court must give the more lenient one. The court must always see that the
person to be penalized comes fairly and squarely within the plain words of the enactment.

(3) Punishments can be imposed only if the circumstances of the case fall clearly within the words of the enactment.

(4) Similarly, statutes dealing with jurisdiction and procedure are, if they relate to the infliction of penalties, strictly construed.

PURPOSE OF THIS INTERPRETATION

The rule that penal statutes must receive strict construction was originally evolved in England at a time when English law
prescribed exceedingly harsh penalties and monstrous sentences for trivial offences. For instance penalty by public hanging was
given for pick pocketing. The cutting down of a cherry tree in an orchard was punishable with death.

The purpose of strict construction was to mitigate the rigour of such harsh sentences and sweeping condemnations. Times have
changed since and although the circumstances which necessitated it no longer exist.

GUIDELINES THROUGH JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

Guiding principles of Strict Construction of Penal Statutes From the rules enunciated by different Courts in different cases, the
following guiding principles can be formulated:

1. In criminal cases, strict construction is the general rule of construction.

2. If the Penal Section covers only some cases of persons, their essence cannot be extended to cover other persons. Section 82 of
IPC deals with an act done by a child below 7 years of age. Section 83 deals with acts of children who are above seven but below
12 years of age. The two sections make no provision for an infant who is of exact 7 years. It is submitted that such an infant
should be dealt with under Section 82 of the code because penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly. In order to warrant a
conviction for an offence a case must fall within the ambit of the definition of the offence charged and the rule is that the benefit
of all reasonable doubts must always go the accused.

3. If there is no ambiguity, and the act or omission by the accused falls clearly within the mischief of the statute, the statute is to be
interpreted like any other law i.e., the full effect will be given to the statute.
 13

4. Penal statutes generally have a prospective operation. No penal statute should be given a retrospective operation Article 20(1)
of the Indian Constitution.

5. Where certain procedural requirements have been laid down by a statute to be completed in a statute dealing with punishments,
the Court is duty-bound to see that all these requirements have been complied with before sentencing the accused.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, (2005)

The judgment, in this case, was decided by a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court, and it was determined that:

1. The exemption clause must be rigorously construed, and it is not available to the Court to ignore conditions specified in the
exemption notification.

2. A mandatory rule must be carefully obeyed, but a directory rule may be satisfied with sufficient adherence.

3. When legislation prescribes a certain Act to be performed in a specific manner and states that failure to comply with the said
requirement results in serious consequences, such requirement is mandatory.

4. It is the basic principle of interpretation that if a statute directs that something must be done, it must be done in the manner
specified and not in any other way.

5. Where legislation is criminal in nature, it must be rigidly construed and obeyed.

The Supreme Court held that it is settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly
construed and followed. The basic rule of strict construction of a penal statute is that a person cannot be penalized without a clear
letter of the law. Presumptions or assumptions have no role in the interpretation of penal statutes.

Tolaram v. State of Bombay

Held that- “If two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the Court must lean towards that
construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes a penalty. It is not competent for Court to
stretch the meaning of an expression used by the legislature in order to carry out the intention of the legislature.

NON-RETROSPECRTIVE NATURE OF CRIME

The principle of non-retrospectivity of penal laws is an important legal principle that is widely recognized in many legal systems,
including India. This principle states that no person can be punished for an act that was not a crime when it was committed. In
other words, penal laws must not be retrospective in nature.

The rationale behind this principle is that a person should have fair notice of what constitutes a crime and what the punishment for
that crime will be. If penal laws were to be applied retroactively, then it would be unfair to punish a person for an act that was not
considered a crime at the time it was committed. This principle also helps to prevent arbitrary and unfair application of criminal
laws by the government.

For example, if a person committed an act that was not a crime at the time it was committed, but later, the government passes a
law making that act a crime, then the person cannot be punished for that act. This is because the person did not have fair notice
that the act would be considered a crime and would be punished accordingly.

(LOOK INTO BOOK AS WELL) PG. 134

14
 15

UNIT 4

Probation: Meaning

-Probation can be defined as the release of the offender, from police custody, subject to the good behaviour of the convicted
offender under specific conditions. It is considered as the supervision period, in which the offender has to follow certain rules
prescribed by the court, under the supervision of the probation officer.

-A person is granted probation when he is found guilty for commission of an offence, in which the accused is not sent to jail rather
he is allowed to stay in the community, provided that he adopts ethical conduct and not commit any crime in future, or else he will
be sent to jail.

T-he condition of probation differs regarding the accused and the criminal offence, which encompasses community service, fines,
reporting to a probationary officer, restriction on consumption of drugs and alcohol, counselling, jail time and so forth.

Probation Offenders Act

The Probation of Offenders Act (Act No. 28 of 1958) contains elaborate provisions relating to probation of offenders, which are
made applicable throughout the country.

OBJECTIVES OF PROBATION

The sole objective being 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.

1. Reformation: To reform the behavior of the offender and prevent them from repeating the criminal behavior by providing them
with guidance, supervision, and treatment.

2. Rehabilitation: To assist the offender in their reintegration into society by providing them with necessary support services and
opportunities to improve their lives, such as education, vocational training, and employment.

3. Reduction of recidivism: To reduce the likelihood of the offender committing another crime by monitoring and supporting them
during their probationary period.

4. Restoration: To restore the victim and the community by encouraging the offender to make amends for their crime, such as
paying restitution or performing community service.

5. Community safety: To ensure the safety of the community by monitoring the offender and ensuring that they comply with the
conditions of their probation.

6. Cost-effectiveness: To provide an alternative to imprisonment that is less costly to the government and more effective in
reducing criminal behavior.

Salient features of the Act

The most important salient feature of the act is

1. The Probation of Offenders Act of 1958 is aimed at modifying novice prisoners by rehabilitating them in the society and
avoiding the progression of juvenile offenders into obdurate criminals under environmental control by locking them in
prison with hardened criminals.

2. This seeks to release first offenders, following proper admonition or notice with advice who are suspected to have
committed an offence punishable under Section 379, Section 380, Section 381, Section 404 or Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code and even in case of any crime punishable with incarceration for not more than two years, or with fine, or
both.

3. The Act demands that the Court can order such compensation and the costs of the prosecution for reimbursement by the
accused as it finds fair for the damage or injury to the victim.

4. This Act empowers the Court to free those prisoners on probation in good behaviour if the crime supposedly perpetrated
is not punishable by death or imprisonment for life. He will, therefore, be kept under control.
 16

5. The Act gives the Judge the right to modify the terms of the bail after a prisoner is placed on probation with good
behaviour and to prolong the probation period not to exceed three years from the date of the initial order.

6. The Act empowers the Court to grant a warrant of arrest or summons to him and his guarantees compelling them to
appear before the Court on the date and time stated in the summons if the defendant placed on bail refuses to comply
with the terms of the bond.

Statutory provisions under the Act

The provision is broadly classified into procedural and substantive general laws dealing with probation of the offenders. The first
provision to deal with probation was in Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1898. After the amendment in 1973, the
probation was dealt with in Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Section says that if:

1. Any person who is not below twenty-one years and is convicted of a crime for which the punishment is imprisonment for
seven years or is convicted for an offence punishable with fine.

2. Or any person who is below twenty-one years or if any women convicted of an offence not punishable with
imprisonment of life or death and no previous conviction is proved against the offender.

3. And appears before the court, regardless of the circumstances in which he has committed the offence, the court might
release the offender on the promise of good conduct.

The court might release him on entering the bond for good conduct and peace instead of punishing the offender with
imprisonment. I

n this case of Jugal Kishore Prasad v. The State of Bihar, the Supreme Court stated that the aim of the law is to deter the juvenile
offenders from turning into obdurate criminals as a result of their interaction with seasoned mature-age criminals in case the
juvenile offenders are sentenced to incarceration in jail. It is observed that the Act is in accordance with the present trend of
penology, which says that effect should be made with accordance to change and remould the offender and not to retribute justice.

Section 3 to Section 12 of the Probation of the Offender Act, 1958 deals with the procedures of the court to deal with the
release of the offenders. The important aspects of the provisions are discussed in five ways:

Admonition

Section 3 of the Probation of the Offenders Act,1958 deals with the power of court to release the offender after admonition. An
Admonition, in literal terms, means a firm warning or reprimand. Section 3 says how the offender is benefited on the basis of
admonition after satisfying the following conditions:

• When any person is found guilty of committing an offence under Section 379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section
404 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,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

• An offender should not previously be convicted for the same offence.

• The Court considers the nature of the offence and the character of the offender.

• The Court may release the offender on probation of good conduct applying Section 4 of the Act, instead of sentencing
him.and,

• The Court may release the offender after due admonition, instead of sentencing him.

Case laws

1. Basikesan v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1967 Ori 4 – In this case, a 20-year-old was found guilty of an offence under
Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. It was held that the youth had committed the offence not deliberately and so
the case must be applied for Section 3 of the Probation Act and be released after admonition.

2. Ahmed v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 Raj 190 – In this case, the court said that the benefit of the Probation of the
Offenders Act does not extend to anyone who has indulged in any activity that resulted in an explosive situation leading
to communal tension.

Probation on good conduct

 17

Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act,1958 talks about the release of the offender on the basis of good conduct. It is a
very important Section of the Act. The important points that must be remembered for the application of this Section are:

• Section 4 of the Act is not applicable if the offender is found guilty of an offence with death or imprisonment for life.

• The Court has to consider the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the
offender.

• The court may pass a supervision order to release the offender on probation of good conduct. The supervisory period is
not to be shorter than one year. The probation officer must supervise the individual for such a span in such a situation. In
the supervisory order, the name of the probation officer should be listed.

• The Court can direct the offender to execute a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called
upon during such period which should not exceed a period of three years. The court may release the offender on good
behaviour.

• The Court may put appropriate conditions in the supervision order and the court making a supervision order explain to
the offender the terms and conditions of the order. Such supervision order should forthwith be furnished to the offender.

Case laws

1. Smt. Devki v. The State of Haryana, AIR 1979 SC 1948 – In this case, 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.

2. Dalbir Singh v. The State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1677 – In this case, the court took the opinion that it is appropriate
for the defendant to be placed on probation for his good conduct, given that the facts of the situation are needed to be
taken into account. One of the circumstances informing the aforementioned opinion which cannot be omitted is “the
essence of the offence.” Thus, Section 4 can be redressed where the court recognizes the circumstances of the situation,
in particular the “character of the crime,” when the court decides whether it is reasonable and necessary for the execution
of a defined reason that the defendant should be released on the grounds of good conduct.

3. Phul Singh v. the State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 249 – In this case, the court held that the provision of Section 4 should
not be mistaken and applied easily in undeserving cases where a person in early twenties commits rape. The court, thus,
refused the application of probation on such heinous nature of crime and convicted the person.

Cost and compensation

Section 5 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 says that if any person is released under Section 3 or Section 4 of this Act,
even then the court might order:

• The offender to pay compensation to the victim for the loss or the injury occurred to him. Or

• Cost of the proceeding as the court may think reasonable.

Case laws

1. Rajeshwari Prasad v. Ram Babu Gupta, AIR 1961 Pat 19 – The amount of compensation is purely on the discretion of
the court to grant if it thinks it is reasonable in the case. Thus, deciding the amount of compensation, it is solely the
court’s discretion to require payment and costs where it finds.

Offenders under 21 years of age

Section 6 of the Probation of the Offenders Act,1958 talks about the restriction on the imprisonment of offenders under twenty-
one years of age. This provision says that offenders who are under 21 years of age are not sent to prison where the offence is not
so serious as to warrant imprisonment for life or death. Important points to be remembered before the application of Section 6:

• In cases where the accused is below 21 years of age, the Court shall call for the report of the Probation Officer. If the
court’s opinion is not desirable with offender either on the ground of admonition (Section 3) or on the ground of release
on probation of good conduct (Section 4), the Court can pass sentence of imprisonment on the offender who is under 21
of years ago but the Court cannot sentence him without recording reasons for doing so. The Court has an obligation to
 18

see whether Section 3 or 4 of the Act applies or not. For this purpose, the Court must call for the report of the Probation
Officer.

• The court considers the nature of the offence and the character, physical and mental condition of the offender before
making any decision.

• On receiving a report, the Court peruses it and decides whether the offender can be released on admonition or probation
of good conduct or not.

• After receiving the report, if the court orders that the offender shall not be released, applying Section 3 or Section 4 of the
Act, the Court can pass sentence to the offender recording the reasons for doing so.

Case laws

1. Daulat Ram v. The State of Haryana 1972 SC 2434 – In this case, 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 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.

2. Ramji Nissar v. The State of Bihar; AIR 1963 SC 1088 – In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the object of the
Act, 1958 is to prevent the turning of youthful offenders into criminals by their association with hardened criminals of
mature age within the walls of a prison. The method adopted is to attempt their possible reformation instead of inflicting
on them the normal punishment for their crimes.

Report of probation officers

Section 7 of the Probation of the Offenders Act,1958 deals with the clause that the report of the probating officer is kept
confidential. No Probation Officer’s report is necessary to apply Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act but such report is
must under Section 6 of Probation of Offenders Act if the offender is under 21 years of age. However, if such a report is available
on the record, under Section 4 of the Act, the Court shall not ignore it and that the Court shall take the report into consideration.

Variation of conditions of probation

Section 8 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 deals with the variation of conditions of probation. This section provides for the
modification of the conditions of probation in certain situations, such as when the probation officer or the court feels that the
conditions are too onerous or not appropriate for the offender.

The key provisions of Section 8 are:

1. The probation officer or the court can, at any time during the probation period, vary the conditions of probation if it is
deemed necessary to do so.
2. The probationer must be given notice of the proposed variation and an opportunity to be heard before any decision is
made.
3. The probation officer or the court can modify the conditions of probation to make them less onerous or more appropriate
for the probationer's needs.
4. If the probationer fails to comply with the modified conditions, the probation officer or the court can take appropriate
action, such as revoking probation or imposing additional conditions.
5. The purpose of Section 8 is to ensure that the conditions of probation are flexible and can be modified to meet the
changing needs of the probationer.
6. It is important to note that Section 8 only allows for the variation of conditions of probation and not the duration of
probation. If the probation officer or the court wishes to extend the duration of probation, they must do so in accordance
with the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

SECTION-9
 19

Section 9 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 deals with the procedure to be followed when an offender fails to observe the
conditions of the bond. It provides for the revocation of probation and the consequences that follow.

The key provisions of Section 9 are:

1. If the probationer fails to observe any of the conditions of the bond, the probation officer or the court may call upon the
probationer to show cause as to why the bond should not be revoked.
2. The probationer must be given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard before any decision is made.
3. If the probation officer or the court is satisfied that the probationer has failed to observe the conditions of the bond, they
may revoke the bond and order the offender to serve the original sentence
4. If the probationer has partially complied with the conditions of the bond, the probation officer or the court may order the
offender to serve only a part of the original sentence or impose any other appropriate punishment.

It is important to note that the revocation of the bond and the imposition of the original sentence is not mandatory. The probation
officer or the court has discretion to impose any other appropriate punishment, depending on the circumstances of the case.

THE OFFENCE FOR WHICH PROBATION CANNOT BE GRANTED UNDER THE ACT

There are certain cases in which the Probation of the Offender Act is not applicable. In normal circumstances the Probation of the
Offender Act is not applicable to:

• Section 409, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code – these Sections deal with breach of trust by public servants, forgery
of valuable security and will and documents used as a genuine forgery. In Rev vs By Adv. Sri P.K.Ravisankar and State Of
Gujarat vs V.A. Chauhan, on 3 February 1983, the court did not grant release of the offenders on the basis of Section 3
and Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act,1958.

• Probation of the Offenders Act,1958 does not grant the release on the grounds of kidnap or abduction. In the case of Smt.
Devki v. State of Haryana, AIR 1979 SC 1948 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.

• The Act refrains from providing release of habitual offenders. In the case of Kamroonissa v. the State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1974 SC 2117, the appellant was charged with the theft of gold. She was punished by rigorous imprisonment. She
was under 21 years of age. The probation officer thus requested the court to grant her the release under Sections 3 and 4
of the probation of the offender’s Act. The court refused the claim by addressing that the appellant had been engaging in
various crimes before and was arrested in 1971.

• Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code – This Section speaks about the violence that causes grievous hurt. Thus, the
Probation of the Offender Act does not provide a release on this basis.

• State of Sikkim v. Dorjee Sherpa And Ors– In some cases, the Court does not take technical views and should take into
account certain considerations, such as the risk of work losses, to invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act
even in serious offences. This was also argued that the Court would also take into account that convicts belonging to
middle-class families with no criminal record frequently become victims of situations due to the unwelcome business and
other negative forces available to these young generations.

UNIT 5
 20

UNIT 5 [PAROLE]

Definition of Parole

-By the term, parole is meant the grant of release to the convict, only when he has served a part of his punishment in jail.

-In this, the prisoner is temporarily or permanently released from the jail, subject to the conditions set forth by the parole board.
These conditions ensure the safety of the members of the society include appearing before the parole officer whenever needed,
obeying the law, restriction on the consumption of alcohol or drugs, avoiding contact with certain people, restriction on leaving
the specified geographical area without the permission of the officer, getting employment and so forth.

-While on parole, the convicts are not considered as free from their sentence, rather they have to serve the community and
rehabilitate themselves and comply with the rules specified, or else they will be sent back to jail on the grounds of the original
sentence.

OBJECTIVES

The Parole Laws are basically progressive measures for the betterment of the prisoners, the main objective was to release
prisoners on the leave as per Rule 1(A) and 19 of the Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 are as follows:

-The main purpose of Parole was that Prisoner can maintain continuity together with his family, friends, and community.

-To save the prisoner from the harmful effects of continuous prison life.

-Parole enables a prisoner to develop a feeling of self-confidence there is a life beyond prison.

-Parole helps a prisoner to develop a sense of hope and active interest in his life. 5. It aims to rehabilitate the prisoner.

The idea of parole, as established in the case of Budhi v. State of Rajasthan (2005), serves three purposes:

1. As a motivator for prison inmates to change their ways.

2. Ensure that the prisoners’ family relationships are as intact as possible, as they may be prone to fracture as a result of the
prisoner’s protracted confinement.

3. Assist the offenders in gradually assimilating into society and adapting to its folds.

The following was stated in the landmark case of Charanjit Lal vs. State of Delhi 28 (1985):

1. Deterrence, prevention, retribution, and reformation are the four basic goals that a state hopes to achieve by punishing an
offender.

2. Life offenders should be considered for periodic release from prison, and opportunities should be provided for them to
not only handle their personal and family problems but also to retain their ties to society.

3. They must be allowed to breathe fresh air for at least a short period of time, provided that they maintain good behaviour
throughout their confinement and show a want to mend and become good citizens.

4. While they are serving a sentence in jail, the redemption and rehabilitation of such inmates for the good of society must
be given fair consideration.

INDIA
 21

• The grant of Parole in India is administered by the rules made under the Prison Act, 1894 and Prisoner Act, 1900.

• Each state in India has its own parole rules.

Eligibility for the grant of parole/ CONDITIONS

According to the 2010 Parole/Furlough Guidelines, to be eligible for parole:

1. A convict must have served at least one year in jail, excluding any time spent in remission.

2. The prisoner’s behaviour had to be uniformly good.

3. The criminal should not have committed any crimes during the period of parole if it was granted previously.

4. The convict should not have broken any of the terms and restrictions of his or her previous release.

5. A minimum of six months should have passed since the previous parole was terminated.

Convicts not eligible for Parole- Prisoners who

• Have been or are involved in criminal activities against the state

• Are threats to national security
• Are not citizens of India
• Are convicted of multiple murders or for murder & rape of a child or children

Other conditions-

1) The paroled person should hold the permit always and should produce on being tendered by any police officer or magistrate or
any other competent authority.

2) He shall not associate with notorious bad characters, ruffians and anti-social elements.

3) He shall not indulge in coercing any of the witnesses or complainant to adduce evidence in his favor.

4) He shall report any charge in the address or his movement and leaving the locality or jurisdiction which is specifically
prescribed in his behalf.

5) He shall also obey all laws and public ordinances.

6) He shall not indulge in alcoholism, intoxicating beverages and narcotics.

The procedure followed when a prisoner requests parole

After an inmate requests parole, the jail authority (Superintendent) requests a report from the police station that conducted the
arrest, as is standard protocol. The report, along with all additional documents such as a medical report (in the case of illness as a
justification for parole), and the Superintendent’s recommendation, is then given to the Deputy Secretary, Home (General), State
Government, who makes the final decision on the application.

In some states, the application is referred to the Inspector General of Prisons along with the police report and recommendation,
who then considers it before the District Magistrate. The decision is made by the State Government in collaboration with the
District Magistrate.

TYPES OF PAROLE IN INDIA

1. Custody parole or emergency parole

 22

Custody parole is provided in emergency situations. Except for foreigners and those serving death sentences, all convicted persons
may be eligible for emergency parole for 14 days for reasons such as the death of a family member (which includes grandparents,
father, mother, spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister) and the marriage of a family member (which includes son, daughter, brother,
sister), provided that emergency parole cannot be extended.

The Superintendent of jail grants parole, which is subject to verification of the circumstances from the concerned police station.
Depending on the offence committed by the prisoner and his behaviour during his stay, the authority approving emergency parole
will determine whether to give parole under police escort or with a condition to report daily to the local police station.

Prior to his parole release, the prisoner will be responsible for the costs of a police escort. Except in the case of the death of his
nearest relatives, a prisoner may not be released on regular or emergency parole for a period of one year after the expiration of his
previous emergency or regular parole.

Regular parole

Except in exceptional circumstances, offenders who have served at least one year in prison are eligible for regular parole for a
maximum of one month. It is awarded for a variety of reasons, including:

1. A family member’s (which includes father, mother, spouse, son, daughter) serious illness
2. A family member’s death or an accident. (same as custody parol, as stated above)
3. A member of the family marries.
4. The convict’s wife gives birth to the child (except for high-security risk prisoners).
5. Maintain social or familial ties.
6. Natural calamities cause serious harm to the convict’s family’s life or possessions.
7. Continue to file a Special Leave Petition.

JUDICIAL TREND

In the case of the Election Commission of India vs. Mukhtar Ansari (2017), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court declared that custody
parole cannot be used as a substitute for bail and cannot be extended for long periods of time or for daily visits.

In the case of Babulal Das v. State of West Bengal (1975), the Supreme Court held that people who are imprisoned and enraged
without trial should be given a chance to reform themselves through reasonable use of the parole power, calculated risks, and
short-term release, which could be a social gain if the beneficent jurisdiction is wisely exercised.

In Inder Singh v. the State (Delhi Administration) (1978), the Supreme Court stressed the importance of allowing parole to be
used liberally, especially in the event of grave offences.

There was a provision in the Delhi Rules on Parole to achieve a balance between the necessity to provide inmates with the option
to reconnect with society and retain their family ties through parole while also preventing similar occurrences from occurring. It
states that prison inmates accused of terrible crimes such as murder, rape, or dacoity will not be eligible for interim parole.
However, in the case of Dinesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2012), this was found to be in violation of Article 14 of
the Indian Constitution.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAROLE AND FURLOUGH

 23

The Supreme Court has clarified the difference between parole and furlough in a number of decisions ( the State of Maharashtra
vs. Suresh Panduram (2006), State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Mohinder Singh (2000), etc). The following are a few of them:

1. Parole and furlough are both forms of conditional release.

2. Parole can be awarded in the case of short-term detention, whereas furlough is allowed in the case of long-term
detention.

3. Parole lasts for one month, whereas furlough lasts for a maximum of 14 days.

4. The Divisional Commissioner grants parole, and the Deputy Inspector General Prison grants furlough.

5. A specific justification for parole is necessary, whereas a furlough is intended to break the monotony of imprisonment.

6. In the case of furlough, the duration of incarceration is not taken into account for calculating the term of parole.

7. Parole can be given multiple times, whereas furlough has a limit.

8. Furlough can be denied in the interest of society because it is not granted for any specific reason.

PAROLE BOARD

Parole boards are typically appointed or elected bodies that are responsible for making decisions regarding the release of eligible
offenders from prison on parole. The specific constitution and functions of parole boards may vary by jurisdiction, but there are
some common elements that are typical of most parole systems.

Constitution of Parole Boards:

Composition: Parole boards are typically composed of a group of individuals appointed by the government or elected by the
public. The board may include a mix of legal professionals, law enforcement officials, and community members.

Qualifications: Members of the parole board are typically required to have a certain level of education and experience in the
criminal justice system or related fields.

Appointment or Election: The process for appointing or electing members of the parole board may vary by jurisdiction.

Functions of Parole Boards:

Determining Eligibility: One of the primary functions of the parole board is to determine which eligible offenders should be
released from prison on parole. The board reviews the offender's case, including their criminal history and behavior while in
prison, to make this determination.

Conducting Parole Hearings: The board is responsible for conducting parole hearings, where they review the case of eligible
offenders and make decisions regarding their release.

Setting Conditions of Parole: If an offender is granted parole, the board sets the conditions that must be followed while on
parole, such as attending counseling, finding employment, or living in a certain area.

Supervising Parolees: The board is responsible for supervising offenders who are released on parole to ensure they comply with
the conditions set by the board.

Revoking Parole: If a parolee violates the conditions of their parole, the board may revoke their parole and send them back to
prison.

Developing Policies: The board may develop policies and guidelines for the parole system to ensure consistency and fairness in
decision-making.

Providing Recommendations: The board may provide recommendations to the court or other criminal justice agencies regarding
the release and supervision of offenders.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROBATION AND PAROLE

 24

Basis of
Comparison Probation Parole

Legal Status Part of the sentencing process Early release from prison

Available to first-time offenders or those Available to those who have served a portion of
Eligibility with a low-risk criminal history their sentence

Rehabilitation and reintegration into

Purpose society Supervision and reintegration into society

Initiated by Court Parole board or parole officer

Length of Varies depending on the length of the sentence and

Supervision Typically 1-3 years the conditions of release

Determined by the court, can include Determined by the parole board or parole officer,
community service, drug testing, can include employment, drug testing, and
Conditions counseling, and curfew residential restrictions

Consequences of May result in revocation of probation and May result in revocation of parole and return to
Violation imposition of original sentence prison to serve the remainder of the sentence

Generally less expensive than May be more expensive than imprisonment due to
Cost imprisonment the cost of supervision and support services

Supervision Typically conducted by a probation officer Conducted by a parole officer

May be longer than probation, depending on the

Duration Generally shorter than parole length of the sentence and the conditions of release

Availability of Typically limited to community-based May have access to a wider range of support
Services services services, such as job training and education

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

Merits of Probation:

1. Rehabilitation: Probation provides an opportunity for rehabilitation and reform of the offender. By allowing the offender to
remain in the community, they can receive counseling, education, and support to help them reintegrate into society and become
productive citizens.

2. Cost-effective: Probation is typically less expensive than incarceration, as it does not require the same level of staffing and
infrastructure as prisons.

3. Reduces recidivism: Probation may reduce the likelihood of re-offending. Studies have shown that offenders who are placed on
probation are less likely to commit crimes again than those who are incarcerated.

Merits of Parole:

1. Early release: Parole allows eligible offenders to be released from prison before the completion of their sentence. This can help
reduce prison overcrowding and save the government money.

2. Rehabilitation: Similar to probation, parole provides opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

3. Supervision: Parolees are often subject to strict conditions and supervision, which can help ensure public safety and reduce the
likelihood of re-offending.

Demerits of Probation:
 25

1. Lack of punishment: Some argue that probation is not a sufficient punishment for serious crimes, as it allows offenders to avoid
incarceration.

2. Limited resources: Probation officers are often overburdened and may not have enough time or resources to effectively monitor
and supervise all offenders on probation.

3. Public safety concerns: Some offenders may pose a risk to public safety, and releasing them on probation may put the
community at risk.

Demerits of Parole:

1. Risk of re-offending: There is always a risk that a parolee may re-offend, particularly if they have not received adequate
rehabilitation or support.

2. Early release: Some argue that releasing offenders before they have served their full sentence is not appropriate for serious
crimes and may undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

3. Stigma: Parolees may face social stigma and discrimination, which can make it difficult for them to reintegrate into society.

POLICE SYSTEM

Introduction
 26

Police are one of the most omnipresent organisations of the society. The policemen, therefore, happen to be the most visible
representatives of the government. In an hour of need, danger, crisis and difficulty, when a citizen does not know, what to do and
whom to approach, the police station and a policeman happen to be the most appropriate and approachable unit and person for
him.

The police are considered an essential part of the criminal justice system. As Police being the first essential element of the
criminal justice system so it has to perform all the necessary functions such as it has to investigate the crime, arrest the criminals,
gather all evidence from the scene of crime.

Their main duty is to pick the criminal from society for the prosecution and get them punished for their offense. Police are also
considered as the important link between the government and people.

Hierarchial Structure of police

The police system in India is organized into a hierarchical structure with various ranks and responsibilities. Here is a brief
overview of the hierarchy of police in India, starting from the topmost rank:

1. Director General of Police (DGP): This is the highest rank in the police force and is held by the head of the state police
force in each state.
2. Additional Director General of Police (ADGP): This rank is just below the DGP and is responsible for a specific area
of the police force.
3. Inspector General of Police (IGP): This rank is responsible for a range of duties, including maintaining law and order
in a specific geographic area, overseeing investigations, and managing police stations.
4. Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP): This rank is responsible for managing a range of functions within the
police force, including investigations, intelligence gathering, and public order management.
5. Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP)/Superintendent of Police (SP): These ranks are responsible for maintaining law
and order in a specific district or city, overseeing investigations, and managing police stations.
6. Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP): This rank is responsible for managing investigations, overseeing police
stations, and maintaining law and order in a specific area.
7. Inspector: This rank is responsible for supervising investigations, managing police stations, and maintaining law and
order in a specific area.
8. Sub-Inspector: This rank is responsible for conducting investigations, managing police stations, and maintaining law
and order in a specific area.
9. Assistant Sub-Inspector: This rank is responsible for managing police stations, conducting investigations, and
maintaining law and order in a specific area.
10. Constable: This is the lowest rank in the police hierarchy and is responsible for maintaining law and order in a specific
area, conducting investigations, and assisting senior officers in their duties.

Principles of Policing

The police play a very important role in a democratic setup of government. They must win the confidence of the people. The
principles underlying policing in a free, permissive and participatory democracy may be summarized as follows:-

1) To contribute towards liberty, equality and fraternity in human affairs;

2) To help and reconcile freedom with security, and to uphold the rule of law;

3) To uphold and protect human rights;

4) To contribute towards winning faith of the people;

5) To strengthen the security of persons and property;

6) To investigate, detect and activate the prosecution of offences;

Functions of Police

Police plays a prominent role in society by performing the following:-

 27

1) Prevention of crime –

The main job of police is the prevention of crime. It is the primary duty of police to reach on the spot of occurrence of crime, no
sooner the information is given to it and to take necessary steps to prevent its occurrence.

2) Patrolling and surveillance

One of the important functions of police is patrolling as a watch and ward duty especially in urban area under surveillance,
dossiers and watch charts are kept in each police station

3) Investigation and Enquiry into offenders

Investigation and enquiry are also one of the basic duties of police after recording the FIR. All investigation and enquiry works
from part of the job of police whether an offence is committed under IPC or in any other special laws, where police are
empowered to undertake such responsibility.

5) Interrogation of Offenders or Suspects

Police can interrogate all the persons on whom it relies to be connected with the commission of crime in order to find out the fact
of the case. They can frisk the suspect. Frisking means checking the pockets and clothing of a suspect as a measure of societal
safety and security.

6) Protection of women and children

The police have a special responsibility to protect women and children. They can take action to prevent domestic violence, child
abuse, and other forms of violence against women and children.

Powers of Police officers

In India, the powers of the police are defined by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Police Act. The police
have a wide range of powers, including the following:

1. Power to investigate: The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) gives police officers the power to investigate crimes.
Section 156(1) of the CrPC states that any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a magistrate,
investigate any cognizable case.

2. Power to arrest: Police officers have the power to arrest individuals if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the
person has committed a crime. Section 41 of the CrPC outlines the conditions under which a police officer may arrest
someone, and Section 46 outlines the procedure for making an arrest.

3. Power to search and seize: Police officers can search and seize property if they have a warrant or if they believe that the
property is related to a crime. Section 165 of the CrPC outlines the power of police officers to conduct searches, and
Section 102 outlines the power to seize property.

4. Power to maintain public order: The Indian Penal Code (IPC) gives police officers the power to maintain public order
and prevent disturbances. Section 129 of the IPC allows police officers to disperse unlawful assemblies, and Section 130
allows them to use force if necessary.

5. Power to use force: Police officers have the power to use force in certain situations. Section 46 of the CrPC allows a
police officer to use force to effect an arrest, and Section 129 of the IPC allows them to use force to disperse unlawful
assemblies.

Problems Faced by Police

The following are the problems that police are confronted with:

1) Lack of people’s cooperation in crime detection and apprehending the offender due to fear of possible harassment at the
instance of police officials.

2) Lack of sense of social responsibility among people is responsible for the failure of police in controlling the crimes.

3) The criminalisation of politicians provides undesirable protection to professional offenders and a lot of pressure on police to
drop the proceedings against the criminals.
 28

4) Even the courts look with suspicion at the evidence put forth by the police.

5) Higher police officers use the services of lower cadre police for their personal and household works.

Causes of Failure of Police in India In India

1) Misuse of discretionary power by police during their duty such as arrest without warrant, search of a house or place without any
order etc.

2) Oppressive attitude is another cause of failure of police system in India. The attitude shown to the public during their duty such
as torturing the prisoners, firing on the mob, attitude shown by the police while filling the FIR are some of the example of
oppressive attitude of police.

3) Corruption is also a major reason for failure of police system as tendency of earning money illegally or accepting gratification
is on peak in the police department.

4) Lack of Cooperation by Public is another major reason for the failure of police system. The reason behind is that the
relationship the police and the public is somewhat stained and the people are ordinarily scared of police. They always prefer to
avoid the connection with the police.

DK Basu vs. State of West Bengal:

In this case, decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1997, the court laid down guidelines for the arrest and detention of
individuals by police officers. The court ruled that police officers must inform individuals of the grounds of their arrest, and that
the arrest memo must be prepared in the presence of a witness. The court also ruled that police officers must inform a relative or
friend of the arrested person about the arrest and place of detention.