INTRODUCTION

The earlier penological approach held imprisonment, that is, custodial measures to be the only
way to curb crime. But the modern penological approach has ushered in new forms of sentencing
whereby the needs of the community are balanced with the best interests of the accused:
compensation, release on admonition, probation, imposition of fines, community service are few
such techniques used.

Meaning of probation

The term Probation is derived from the Latin word probare, which means to test or to prove. It is
a treatment device, developed as a non-custodial alternative that is used by the magistracy where
guilt is established but it is considered that imposing of a prison sentence would do no good.
Imprisonment decreases the convicts capacity to readjust to the normal society after the release
and association with professional delinquents often has undesired effect.1

1 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/pro_bat.htm.
 LAW OF PROBATION IN INDIA

Section 562 of the Code if 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. S.361 makes it mandatory for the judge to declare the reasons for not awarding the benefit
of probation.

In 1958 the Legislature enacted the Probation of Offenders Act, which lays down for probation
officers to be appointed who would be responsible to give a pre-sentence report to the magistrate
and also supervise the accused during the period of his probation. Both the Act and S.360 of the
Code exclude the application of the Code where the Act is applied. The Code also gives way to
state legislation wherever they have been enacted.

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, 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 and be
of good behavior:

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 taking bail
for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the manner provided
by sub-section.
(2) Where proceedings are submitted to a Magistrate of the first class as provided by sub-section
(1), such Magistrate may thereupon pass such sentence or make such order as he might have
passed or made if the case had originally been heard by him, and, if he thinks further inquiry or
additional evidence on any point to be necessary, he may make such inquiry or take such
evidence himself or direct such inquiry or evidence to be made or taken.

(3) In any case in which a person is convicted of theft, theft in a building, dishonest
misappropriation, cheating or any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with not more
than two years imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous
conviction is proved against him, the Court before which he is so convicted may, if it thinks fit,
having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender
and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence
was committed, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition.

(4) An order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or
Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.

(5) When an order has been made under this section in respect of any offender, the High Court or
Court of Session may, on appeal when there is a right of appeal to such Court, or when
exercising its powers of revision, set aside such order, and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such
offender according to law:

Provided that the High Court or Court of Session shall not under the sub-section inflict a greater
punishment than might have been inflicted by the Court by which the offender was convicted.

(6) The provisions of sections 121, 124 and 373 shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of
sureties offered in pursuance of the provisions of this section.

(7) 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 which the Court acts or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named
for the observance of the conditions.
(8) If the Court which convicted the offender, or a Court which could have dealt with the
offender in respect of his original offence, is satisfied that the offender has failed to observe any
of the conditions of his recognizance, it may issue a warrant for his apprehensions.

(9) An offender, when apprehended on any such warrant, shall be brought forthwith before the
Court issuing the warrant, and such Court may either remand him in custody until the case is
heard or admit him to bail with a sufficient surety conditioned on his appearing for sentence and
such Court may, after hearing the case, pass sentence.

(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.

Object

Section 360 is intended to be used to prevent young persons from being committed to jail, where
they may associate with hardened criminals, who may lead them further along the path of crime,
and to help even men of more mature years who for the first time may have committed crimes
through ignorance, or inadvertence or the bad influence of others and who, but for such lapses,
might be expected to be good citizens. It is not intended that this section should be applied to
experienced men of the world who deliberately flout the law and commit offences.

In Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar2, the Supreme Court explained the rationale of the
provision:

The object of the provision is to prevent the conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate
criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals of mature age in case the
youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail.

RELEASE ON PROBATION OF GOOD CONDUCT

Section 360(1) of CRPC

2 (1972) 2 SCC 633.

Having regard to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and the circumstances in
which the offence was committed, if the court convicting the accused person considers it
expedient to release the offender on probation of good conduct (instead of sentencing him at
once to any punishment), it may direct the offender to 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 fix and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of
good behaviour. Such a release is permissible only if the following conditions are satisfied:

There is no previous conviction proved against the offender.

When the person convicted is a woman of any age, or any male person under 21 years of
age, and the offence of which he or she is convicted is not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life.

When the person convicted is not under 21 years of age, and the offence of which he is
convicted is punishable with fine only or imprisonment for a term of seven years or less.

First Offenders

The expression first offender refers to an offender who has no previous conviction to his credit,
apart from the offence in question. It is also necessary that the offence committed by him for the
first time must be one of those mentioned in section 360, CrPC. First offenders under this section
are entitled to indulgence on the ground of their age, character or antecedents and to the
circumstances in which the offence is committed. The object of this section is to avoid sending
the first time offender to prison for an offence, which is not of a serious character and thereby
running the risk of turning him into a regular criminal.

First offenders according to sub-section (1) fall under two classes:

When the person convicted is a woman of any age, or any male person under 21 years of
age, and the offence of which he or she is convicted is not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life.
 When the person convicted is not under 21 years of age, and the offence of which he is
convicted is punishable with fine only or imprisonment for a term of seven years or less.

Offenders with any precious conviction or those found guilty of any offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life are totally beyond the purview of the section. From this section it
is clear that it tries to reform the criminals by treating them leniently only in those cases where
there is no serious danger or threat to the protection of the society.

For application of this section it is necessary that the offender must not have been convicted
previously so as to bring him in the category of the first offender. On fulfilment of the above
conditions, if the court by which the offender is convicted considers it expedient that the offender
should be released on probation of good conduct, it may, instead of sentencing him at once to
any punishment, order him to be released on bond with or without sureties. The offender may be
required to furnish a bond to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon during such
period not exceeding three years as the court may direct. The offender shall be directed by the
court to keep the peace and be of good behaviour if he is released on probation under this
section. In Md. Syad Ali v. State of Guj.3 , when the accused was a first offender and his age was
below 21 years but the court had not applied its mind to the application of section 360, it was
held that it was a fit case for granting probation.

No offender can as a matter of right, on fulfilling the conditions laid down in this section, claim
to be released on probation of good conduct. It is a discretionary power given under this section
to the court.

RELEASE AFTER ADMONITION

Section 360(3)

3 1989 Cr.L.J. 2063 (Guj).

Having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender
and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence
was committed, the court may, after convicting the accused person, release him after due
admonition. Such a release is permissible only if the following conditions are satisfied:

There is no previous conviction proved against the accused person.

The offence of which he has been accused of is either theft, theft in a building or
dishonest misappropriation or is punishable under the IPC with not more than 2 years
imprisonment or is one punishable with fine only.

Subsection (3) is applicable only in respect of the specified offences and such other offences
under the IPC that are not punishable with more than two years imprisonment. Under this sub-
section the court has got the discretion to release the offender after admonition instead of
sentencing him to any punishment.

Section 360(4)

An order under s. 360 directing release of the convicted offender on probation of good conduct
or release after due admonition may be made by an appellate court or by the High Court or court
of session when exercising its powers of revision.

Section 360(5)

The High Court or the Court of Session may, on appeal or when exercising its powers of
revision, set aside such order and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law.
But the High Court shall not inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the
court by which the offender was convicted.

BREACH OF RECOGNISANCES

Section 360(8) & Section 360(9)

In case the offender fails to observe the conditions of his recognizance, the court which
convicted the offender or any court which could have dealt with him in respect of his original
offence may issue a warrant for his apprehension and when brought before it may either remand
him in custody until the case is heard or admit him to bail with a sufficient surety and after
hearing the case, pass sentence.

Analysis of Section 4 of Probation Of Offenders Act 1958

Release on Probation

Section 4 of the act deals with the power of the court to release certain offenders on probation of
good conduct.

As per Section 4, if any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable
with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of
opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence
and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct,
then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court
may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his
entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon
during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct and in the meantime to
keep the peace and be of good behavior.

The section further requires that the offender or his surety has a fixed place of residence or
regular occupation in a place where the court exercises jurisdiction. Also, before making any
such order, the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer
concerned in relation to the case. However, it is not necessary that the court has to act on
probation officers report. It can also gather information from other source and on its own
analysis.

The court may also require the offender to remain under the supervision of a probation officer
during certain period, if it thinks that it is in the interests of the offender and of the public. It can
also impose appropriate conditions which might be required for such supervision. In case the
court does specify such conditional release, it must require the offender has to enter into a bond,
with or without sureties, enumerating the conditions. The conditions may relate to place of
residence, abstention from intoxicants, or any other matter as the court thinks appropriate to
ensure that the crime is not repeated.

The non-obstante clause in section 4 of the Act is a clear manifestation of the intention of the
legislatures that the provisions of the Act would have effected notwithstanding any other law for
the time being in force.

It is a general section under which the benefit is extended to the offenders under 21 years of age
and also offenders who are above 21 years of age. Discretion is exercised by the court while
giving the benefit of probation to the offenders above 21 years of age. No reasons are to be
recorded when the benefit of probation is granted to the offenders above 21 years of age.

Section 4 laid down that the court shall consider the report of the P.O if any. It is not obligatory
on the court to call for and consider the report of the P.O. in terms of section 4(2)

An order of release on probation came into existence only after the accused is found guilty and
is convicted of the offence. Thus the conviction of the accused or the finding of the court that he
is guilty cannot be washed out at all because that is the sine quo non for the order of release on
probation of the offender. The order of release on probation of the offender is merely in
substitution of the sentence to be imposed by the court. This has been made permissible by the c
statute with a humanist point of view in order to reform youthful offenders ad to prevent them
from becoming hardened criminals.[v]

Section 6(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act provides that when a person below 21 years of
age is found guilty of an offence which is punishable with imprisonment (but not imprisonment
for life), the Court shall not normally sentence him to imprisonment unless for reasons to be
recorded.

SECTION 360 AND POA EXCLUSIVE OF EACH OTHER

Section 360 itself makes it quite clear that it shall not affect the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act. 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.

Chhanni v. State of Uttar Pradeshi 4, is a case relating to applicability of section 360, Cr.P.C. In
the instant case it was held that provisions of the two statutes regarding probation have
significant differences and they cannot coexist. Hence, provisions of section 360 are wholly
inapplicable in areas where Probation of Offenders Act is made applicable. The difference
between the two statutes is that section 360 of the Code relates only to persons 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 the
probation of offenders act is much wider. It applies to any person found guilty of having
committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore the court
held that the provisions in the two statutes with significant differences could not be intended to
co-exist at the same time in the same area.

The order under this section follows a conviction and can be substituted for a sentence.

361. Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases. Where in any case the Court could have
dealt with,-

(a) an accused person under section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or

(b) a youthful offender under 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, but has not done
so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so.

SPECIAL DIRECTIVE IN CASE OF NON-PUNITIVE MEASURES

4 2006 Cri. L.J. 4068 (S.C.)

The discretion to sentence a convicted person to any punishment has been narrowed down by
section 361. This section requires that the court shall normally deal with the offenders under
section 360 or under the POA, or in case of youthful offenders under the laws of treatment,
training or rehabilitation, of such youthful offenders; and that in case the court decides to pass
any sentence on the offender, it shall record special reasons for doing so. Thus, section 361
clearly shows that the courts while dealing with the convicted persons are to adopt, as a matter of
policy, non punitive measures for the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders, and as far as
possible, to avoid awarding deterrent and retributive punishments.

Where the accused may be given benefit of provisions contained in the POA or section 360, but
he is not given that benefit, section 361 requires the court to gives its reasons for not doing so.

Section 361 of the code casts a duty upon the court to extend the benefit of the Probation Act to
the accused wherever it is possible and to state special reasons if it does not do so. The section
makes it mandatory for the court to record in its judgment special reasons for not extending the
benefit of the Probation Act to the accused. The special reasons must be such as to compel the
court to hold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender after examining the
matter with due regard to the age, character and antecedents of the offender and circumstances in
which the offence was committed. This is some indication by the Legislature that reformation
and rehabilitation and not mere deterrence, are now among the foremost objects of the
administration of criminal justice in our country.

The omission to record special reasons as required by section 361 is an irregularity and may
require the court of appeal or revision to set aside the sentence passed by the lower court if the
irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice. In Santa Singh v. State of Punjab5 , it was
observed by the Supreme Court:

Having regard to the object there can be no doubt that it is one of the most fundamental parts
of criminal procedure and non-compliance thereof will ex-facie vitiate the order [of sentence].
Even if it be regarded as an irregularity the prejudice caused to the accused would be inherent
and implicit because of the infraction of the rules of natural justice which have been incorporated

5 (1976) 4 SCC 190

in this statutory provision, because the accused has been completely deprived of an opportunity
to represent to the court regarding the proposed sentence and which manifestly results in a failure
of justice.

II. Ashok Kumar Dogra vs The State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 29 September, 2008

Facts : On 26.6.1995, while driving a red line bus bearing registration No. DL- 1P-2315 at Peera
Garhi Chowk, Delhi, the petitioner hit a scooter bearing No. DL-1S-1132. The scooter rider, who
was injured succumbed to his injuries later on. PW-8, Ct. Randhir Kumar was an eye witness to
the accident. Before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ct. Randhir Kumar deposed that the accident
was a result of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Considering the entire evidence
produced by the prosecution the petitioner was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The
appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Sessions Court, holding that there is
no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court.

On 28th March, 2008, counsel for the petitioner confined his plea in this matter to the reduction
of sentence and/or the benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has faced the rigors of trial for nearly
twelve years and has already served more than five months of his sentence. Furthermore,
petitioner is the only earning member of the family and has to support his wife and four minor
children.

It is also contended that the petitioner has no history of ever being involved in any criminal
proceedings. Counsel of the petitioner submitted that keeping in mind these factors, either the
sentence of the petitioner may be reduced or the petitioner may be released on probation of good
conduct as contemplated by Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

Counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the contention of the petitioner and relies on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2000 Cri.L.J. 2283. In that
case, whilst dealing with the question of benefit of probation being granted to offenders under
Section 304-A of the IPC, the Supreme Court categorically stated that the benefit of any such
probation should not be extended to persons convicted under Section 304-A for rash and
negligent driving.

Held - While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing
death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be
deterrence.

The punishment sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months
under Section 279 IPC, with a fine of Rs.500/-; and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine
of Rs.5,000/- under Section 304-A IPC awarded by the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate and
confirmed by the Court of Sessions was held to be quite reasonable. The revision petition was
accordingly dismissed.

III. Mukhtiar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 March, 2010

The trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of
fine he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved
against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the same, upheld
the conviction and maintained the sentence.

Facts - On 9th November, 1995, ASI Jagsir Singh was present along with his companion
officials at Sirsa Kainchian in connection with patrol duty. At that time, a secret information was
received that the present petitioner is engaged in distilling of illicit liquor and is operating a
working Still in the fields of Jit Singh son of Harnam Singh at Ghaggar drain. On the receipt of
secret information, ruqa was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case and a raiding
party was constituted. When the raiding party reached at the spot, it found the accused feeding
fire below the hearth. The working still was dismantled. The equipment and raw material was
cooled down and was taken into possession. A separate recovery memo was prepared, vide which
the equipment of the working Still and 175 kg of Lahan (raw material used for preparing the
illicit liquor) were taken into possession.
From the testimony of the witnesses it has held that the petitioner was operating a working Still
and was engaged in distilling illicit liquor. It was submitted that the occurrence had taken place
on 9th November, 1995. A period of more than 14 years has elapsed and during this period, the
petitioner has not committed any other offence. It was further submitted that at the time of
occurrence, the petitioner was aged about 33 years. He has a large family to support and is the
sole breadwinner of his family. It has been submitted that petitioner be granted an opportunity to
reform himself and rehabilitate in the society.

In Isher Dass v. state of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1295, Honble Supreme Court held that
subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act containing the non-obstante clause,
would have over-riding effect and shall prevail if the other conditions prescribed were fulfilled.

The Full Bench held as follows:- To conclude on the legal aspect, therefore, it must be held
that the mere prescription of the minimum sentence under Section 61 (1)(c) of the Punjab Excise
Act, 1914 is no bar to the applicability of Sections 360 and 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 and the same is not a special reason for denying the benefit of probation to a person
convicted there under. In the alternative, it is equally no bar to the applicability of Sections 4 and
6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in
the negative.

Taking into consideration that in the last 14 years, petitioner has committed no other offence, the
age and antecedents of the petitioner, the Court was of the view that ends of justice will be fully
met in case petitioner is released on probation under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a
period of one year. He shall furnish personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court
with an undertaking that he shall maintain peace, good conduct and behavior during the period of
probation.

DUTIES OF PROBATION OFFICER

13. Probation officers.

(1) A probation officer under this Act shall be
(a) a person appointed to be a probation officer by the State Government or recognised as such
by the State Government; or
(b) a person provided for this purpose by a society recognised in this behalf by the State
Government; or
(c) In any exceptional case, any other person who, in the opinion of the court, is fit to act as a
probation officer in the special circumstances of the case.
(2) A court which passes an order under section 4 or the District Magistrate of the district in
which the offender for the time being resides may, at any time, appoint any probation officer in
the place of the person named in the supervision order. Explanation.For the purposes of this
section, a presidency-town shall be deemed to be a district and chief presidency magistrate shall
be deemed to be the district magistrate of that district.
(3) A probation officer, in the exercise of his duties under this Act, shall be subject to the control
of the district magistrate of the district in which the offender for the time being resides.
14. Duties of probation officers.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,
endeavour 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
(e) perform such other duties as may be prescribed.
15. Probation officers to be public servants.Every probation officer and every other officer
appointed in pursuance of this Act shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of
section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
 CONCLUSION

To conclude, it can be said that the measure of alternative punishment i.e., probation and the
objective of theory of reformative punishment would be achieved only if the judiciary and the
administration work together. It would be of great benefit for a country like India, where the jails
are often overcrowded, with frequent human rights violations which would harden the human
inside a person.

Probation is an affirmation of the human inside every being and it must be given importance.
The reform and rehabilitation process have to be worked out in context of existing social
conditions to achieve the ultimate objective to reclaim back those offenders to orderly society
The provision of Section 4 vests in the court a discretion to release a person found guilty of
having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment) for life. It is really for
the court, by which the person is found guilty, to determine, having regard to the circumstances
of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, whether or not it
will be expedient to release him on probation of good conduct. It is only when the court forms an
opinion that in a given case the offender should be released on probation of good conduct that the
court acts as provided in Section

Where, however, the court is not satisfied about the justification of a release on probation of
good conduct, it will certainly impose upon the offender penalty as provided by the Indian Penal
Code. In case of offenders under twenty one years of age, special provision has been made in
Section 6

Section 4 is general. It applies to all kinds of offences, whether under or above twenty one years
of age. Section 4 empowers the court in appropriate cases to release any offender on probation of
good conduct instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment.

Section 4 speaks of punishment and not of imprisonment. The court will not punish him in any
manner if on the facts it is satisfied that a particular person guilty of the offence of the nature
enumerated in Section 4 should be released on his entering into a bond. The word punishment,
therefore, is wide enough to comprehend both the punishment of imprisonment and the
punishment of fine. Therefore, Section 4 empowers a court to remit the fine also and on the plain
wording of the section it will be unreasonable to contend that remission of fine was not within
the competency of the court.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION1
Meaning of probation.............................................................................................1
LAW OF PROBATION IN INDIA...........................................................................2
Object.....................................................................................................................4
RELEASE ON PROBATION OF GOOD CONDUCT............................................5
First Offenders........................................................................................................5
RELEASE AFTER ADMONITION.........................................................................7
BREACH OF RECOGNISANCES...........................................................................8
Release on Probation..............................................................................................8
SECTION 360 AND POA EXCLUSIVE OF EACH OTHER...............................10
SPECIAL DIRECTIVE IN CASE OF NON-PUNITIVE MEASURES.................11
DUTIES OF PROBATION OFFICER....................................................................15
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................17

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Mrs. Sangeeta Bhalla who
gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic Concept of Probation ,
which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so many new things, I
am really thankful to her.

Secondly I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing this
project.

-Jatin Kharb
UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, PANJAB UNIVERSITY

CHANDIGARH

PROJECT REPORT ON:

CONCEPT OF
P R O B AT I O N
SUBMITTED BY SUBMITTED TO

JATIN KHARB PROF.SANGEETA BHALLA

ROLL NO- 33/13

B.A.L.L.B. (HONS.) 6th SEM

SECTION A

(2016)
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kelkar R V Criminal Procedure Code, 6TH

EDITION , Eastern Book Company
http:// Lawctopus.com/ Probation
Jain A K , Criminal Procedure code
Law Herald