07 Chapter 1
07 Chapter 1
07 Chapter 1
PRELIMINARY
1.1 Introduction
Hate the crime not the criminals. This line by Mahatma
Gandhi is the thrust of the reformation of the criminals. Not looking to
criminals as inhuman , the probation system puts forward the changing
nature of modern society where it presently looks into the fact that
probation system aims at rehabilitating the offender to the norms of
society i.e. into law abiding member.
In modern age we believe in reformative method of criminal justice
system. We know very well criminals are not born but circumstances
turns them So many jurist think criminals can make reform and have
opinion if criminals find proper treatment without any hard punishment
they can improve their attitude towards the society.
Probation is well step in this direction, in which offenders are
supervised by any prominent officers without sending jail them.
Probation is the status of a convicted offender during a period
of suspension of the sentence in which he is given liberty
conditioned on his good behavior and in which the state by a
personal supervision attempts to assist him to maintain good
behavior.
--Sutherland and Cressey.
According to this definition probation is not pardon any type. There are
three elements in probation
1- Inspection
It is necessary to inspect of criminals under release of probation
law.
2- Direction of goal
In this period of inspection offenders are advised to actual
direction about his behavior and work.
(1)
3- Aiding
State Government try to provide all type of help to released
offenders on probation if state government thinks about its need.
Probation supervision began in the 19th century in the United
States and the United Kingdom as an initiative of church-based
voluntary groups interested in the reform of criminals. In England and
Wales, probation has its origins in the work of police-court temperance
missionaries of the late 19th century, who provided informal supervision
of offenders at the request of magistrates.39 In the United States,
probation developed from the work of a temperance activist in Boston in
the 1840s, who persuaded judges to release drunkards, and later some
other minor offenders, into his care.
Probation as we know it today thus began with courts using their
common law powers to bind over offenders into the care of charitable
volunteers. A professional probation service based on statute did not
begin to develop until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
These charitable origins have had a strong influence on the nature of
probation.
Probation refers to the conditional release of one convicted of
a crime into the community during a period of supervision under
anassigned probation officer. - David N. Falcone (2005: 207).
The roots of current probation work practice can be found in the
spirit of voluntarism, often underpinned by a strong Christian conviction,
which characterised much social work at the turn of the century. The
guiding purpose of probation was, as originally conceived, to advise,
assist and befriend offenders who were in more need of help than
punishment. Probation orders were not penalties in themselves, but
alternatives to punishment; and the purpose of probation was to give
offenders the chance to respond to a bit of straightforward
commonsensical advice and guidance.
(2)
The term probation was applied by John Augustus to the
practice of bailing offenders out of court, followed by a period of
supervised living in the community. This pioneer of modern
probation was born in Woburn, Massachusetts, and became a
successful shoemaker in Boston. In 1852, a Report of the Labors of
John Augustus was published at the request of his friends, and in it
Augustus wrote: I was in court one morning . . . in which the man
was charged with being a common drunkard. He told me that if he
could be saved from the House of Correction, he never again would
taste intoxicating liquors:
(3)
criminal justice and emphasizes the need to treat offenders as
individuals. Probation evolved to facilitate those individuals whose
offending is regarded as being more the outcome of social disadvantages
or disorganization. They often lack the social, economic, emotional and
family supports which protect or prevent them from developing criminal
associations and then criminal behaviour. The welfare model regards
rehabilitation as the best protection for the community when it is applied
to those offenders who have the capacity to be rehabilitated.
(4)
Probation: the offender is required to be supervised and regularly
checked for a specific period.
Reparation & restitution: the offender is required to undertake
specified activities to repay either society or his victim for his
criminal activities. There is substantial evidence that in many
cases non-custodial sentences are at least as effective as custodial
ones, besides having significant additional advantages. Fines A fine
is a sum of money an offender is required to pay to the authorities.
The amount is generally set by the court but there are usually
statutory limits one the size of the fine.
Probation System
The essence of the system is -
1. That the offenders, instead of being find or sentenced to
imprisonment or bound over, is placed on probation, that is to say,
a probation order is made by the Court and the probationer
undertakes to be bound by it by entering into a recognizance, with
or without sureties.
2. The order may provide the probationer shall be under the
supervision of a probation officer for a special period, and it may
stipulate certain conditions to be observed by the probationer, for
example, as to residence, abstention from intoxicating liquor, and
the like.
3. The order can only produce beneficial results with the voluntary
co-operation of the probationer.1
Probation is based on the following principles:
1. That many offenders are not expert or dangerous criminals but are
weak characters who have surrendered to temptation, or through
misfortune or improvidence, have been brought within the
operations of the police and the Courts.
Definition of probation
1. A Probation is the post pone meant of final judgment or sentence
in a criminal case, giving the offender opportunity to improve his
conduct and to real just himself to the community on conditions
2 Ibid.
(6)
imposed by the court and under the guidance or supervision of an
officer of the court " Donad Taft".3
2. Probation is the status of a convicted offender during the a period
of suspension of the sentence in which he is given liberty
conditioned on his good behavior and in which the state by
personal supervision attempts to assist him to maintain good
behavior "Sutherland".4
Probation implies either suspension of execution of punishment or
imposition of sentence during the good behavior of the offender.
The earlier penological approach held imprisonment, that is,
custodial measures to be the only way to curb crime. But the modern
penological approach has 45 hered in new forms of sentencing where by
the needs of the community are balanced with the best interests of the
accused.5
Compensation, release on administration, probation imposition
fines, community service are few such techniques used through this
paper the advantages of probation are highlighted along with how it
could be made more effective in India.
The term probation is means to test or to prove. It is a treatment
device developed as a non-custodial alternative which is used by
magistracy where guilt is established but it is considered that imposing
of a prisoner sentence would do no good. Imprisonment decreases his
capacity to readjust to the Norman society after the release and
association with proferional aelinanent often has undesired effects.
The statement that probation is not punishment is misleading
however much preferred by delinquents, good probation may involve
restrictions upon freedom and be irksome to refrain from
disapproved behavior or to perform required acts which may
irksome and even painful to the probationer.
--------------------------------- D.R.Taft-- ---- Criminology
3 Probation of offenders Dr. N.V. Paranjpe, Criminology and Pinology page. 305, edition 2000.
4 E. H. Sutherland Principal of criminology, page no. 422.
5 Websites used www.law.cornell.edu
(7)
According to united Nation, Department of social Affairs, the
release of the offenders on probation is a treatment device prescribed by
the court for the persons convicted of offence against the law during
which the probationer lives in the community and regulates his ron life
under conditions imposed by the court or other constituted authority,
and is subject to the supervision by a probation officer. The suspension
of sentence under probation serves the dual purpose of deterrence and
reformation it provides necessary help and guidance to the probationer
in his rehabilitation and at the same time the threat of being subjected to
unexhausted sentence acts as a sufficient deterrent to keep him away
from criminality, the united Nations recommends the adoption and
extension of the probation system by all the countries as a major
instrument of policy in the field of prevention of crime and the treatment
of offenders.
In this research the focus is on legislative and administrative
aspects of probation and means by which probation may be made for
effective in India.
6 Dr. N.V. Paranjpe, Criminology and Penology page. 342, edition 2000, Chapter XXI.
(8)
care rather than jailed. The parole, on the other hand, came into
existence much later somewhere around 1900.
2. A prisoner can be released on parole only after he has already
served a part of his sentence in a prison or a similar institution.
Thus, it essentially involves an initial committal of offender to a
certain period of imprisonment and a conditional release
subsequently after serving a part of the sentence. But in case of
probation, no sentence is imposed, or if imposed, it is not
executed. This, in other words, means that probation is merely the
suspension of sentence and is granted to a prisoner when he has
already lived in prisons or a similar institution for a certain
minimum period and has shown propensity for good behaviour.
3. As rightly pointed out by Dr. Sutherland, a probationer is
considered as if undergoing "treatment" while he is under the
threat of being punished if he violates the conditions of probation:
but a parolee is considered to be in "custody" undergoing both
punishment and treatment while under threat of more severe
punishment, i.e., return to the institution from which he has been
released.
4. Another notable distinction between probation and parole is that
former is a judicial function while the latter is essentially which a
person found guilty of an offence is released by the court without
imprisonment subject to conditions imposed by the court and
subject to supervision of the probation staff. In case of parole, a
prisoner is released from prisoner to the community prior to
expiration of his term of sentence subject to conditions imposed by
the Parole Board. Thus, the release of a parolee is not the result of
a judicial decision.
(9)
5. It has been alluded by J.L. Gillin that probation is probably the
first stage of correctional scheme, the parole being the last stage of
it.
6. Probation and parole also differ from each other from the point of
view of stigma or disqualification attached to an offender who is
released on probation of good conduct, but a prisoner released on
parole suffers stigmatisation as a convicted criminal in the society.
7 Criminology and Penology Dr. N.V. Paranjpe etd. 2000, Chapter Probation of
Offenders.
(10)
4. During this period of probation it helps to accused to collect
such value which is convenient to live his life to provide
freedom which is essential for a good citizen of society.
5. Great benefit of probation that accused can relate his family
and the can participate his responsibility of his family and
he can earn money to livelihood for his family to do any
employment work or to do any occupation.
6. In probation, probationary accused do his self rehabilitation
in society be self efforts in which self dependency and self
motivated persons are improve him.
10 Criminology and penology Dr. N.V. Paranjpe, pg. 330, Chapter XXI etd. 2000.
11 Criminology and penology Dr. N.V. Paranjpe, pg. 330, Chapter XXI etd. 2000.
(13)
3. Probation seeks to obviate the evils of institutional incarceration
and thus prevents the offender from contamination and
conforming to a criminal career. Moreover, sentencing an offender
to a term of imprisonment carries with it a stigma which makes his
rehabilitation in society difficult. The release of the offender on
probation saves him from stigmatization and thus prepares him for
an upright living.
4. Probation seeks to socialize the criminal as the liberty which he
enjoys during the probation period enables him to pick up those
life-habits which are necessary for a law-abiding member of the
community.
5. Probation enables the offender to attend to his domestic
obligations and thus contribute to support his family financially by
taking up suitable work according to his capability.
6. Probation enables the offender to rehabilitate himself through his
self-control and self-confidence in him which are undoubtedly the
essential attributes of a free-life.
7. Before the implementation of probation law, the courts were often
confronted with the problem disposing of the cases of persons who
were charged with neglect of their family. In such cases there was
no alternative but to send them to prison which was an
unnecessary burden on the State exchequer. With the introduction
of probation as a method of reformative justice, the courts now
admit such offenders to probation where they are handled by the
competent probation officers who impress upon them the need to
work industriously and avoid shirking their family responsibilities.
(14)
2) Utility of probation from the stand-point of Society:
Besides the delinquent, probation also serves a useful purpose
for the society as a whole:12
1. It is well known that the interest of society are best served when all
its members play a positive role by seeking their self-rehabilitation.
Since this object is fully achieved by the probation system, it is
indeed an effective method of preserving social solidarity by
keeping the law-breakers well under control.
2. During the probation period, the offender is sent to various
educational, vocational and industrial institutions where he is
trained for a profession which may help him in securing a
livelihood for himself after he is finally released and thus leads an
absolutely upright life.
3. Whatever work an offender is doing as a probationer, he is
contributing to the national economy. Thus, he no longer remains
a burden on society.
3) Utility of probation form the point of view of Probation
Officer: Correctional task of the probation staff requires closer
contact with inmates during his period of probation. This helps
the probation supervisor to get a deeper insight into the real
causes of crime and suggest remedies for their eradication. The
system of probation enables these officials to approach the
problem of crime in a practical manner. Thus it provides an
excellent opportunity to the probation personnel to serve the
community as also the nation. Commenting on this aspect J.L.
Gillin rightly observed that probation system13 if properly
administered, can assist the judge in socializing criminal
procedure. If probation officers furnish correct information to
12 Criminology and penology Dr. N.V. Paranjpe, pg. 331, Chapter XXI etd. 2000.
13 Gillin J.L. : Criminology and penology (3rd Ed.) pg. 321.
(15)
the court about the convicted persons through a careful pre-
sentence investigation, the judge may individualize the
treatment with thus it would be seen that probation as a
reformative measure is a milestone in the progress of modern
liberal trend in the field of penology. Probation as a measure of
rehabilitation shifts the emphasis from deterrence to
reformation and from crime to criminal in accordance with the
modern reformative trends of punishments. The keynote of the
Probation of Offenders Act. 1958 is "reformation and
rehabilitation of the offender through the process of
individualization.14
14 Criminology and penology Dr. N.V. Paranjpe, pg. 332, Chapter XXI etd. 2000.
(16)
into the community conditional upon their being of good behaviour,
whether or not the offender is subject to ongoing supervision.
15 A.I.R. 1943 P.C. 34 at p. 38:70 I.A. 35: 1943 A.L.J. 287: 56 L .W. 283: 47 C.W.N.
497: (1943) 2 M.L.J. 369 (P.C.): 15 R.P.C. 71 : I.L.R. 9 Bom. 287.
16 Sobher v. Administrator General of Bengal A.I.R. 1944 P.C. 67 at p. 69: 71 I.A. 93: 43
C.W.N. 585: 1944 M.W.N. 467: 1944 A.L.J. 404: 46 Bom. L.R. 865: 1944 A.W.R. (P.C.)
42: (1944) 2 M.L.J. 20 (P.C.)
17 Poolock and Mullas Indian Contract Act and Specific Relief Act.
18 Shiv Dayal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1977 Cr.L.J. 1546 at p. 1550 (M.P.).
(17)
Secondly, having regard to the young age of Papalal, if we send him back
to jail, he is likely to become hardened criminal, and the present policy of
penology is to reform criminals rather than punish them. For these
reasons, therefore, we would suspend the sentence of Papalal, second
appellant. While upholding his conviction we would release him on
executing a personal bond of RS. 2,000 to maintain good behavior for a
period of two years, failing which he will be called upon to serve the
sentence imposed on him.19
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not contested the revision
on merits. He contended that the petitioner had been facing the agony of
protracted trial for the last about 12 years. He was aged less then 16
years at the time of talking the sample and as such was entitled to
probation under Sec. 20-AA of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In
support of his age, petitioner has field the certified copy of the school
leaving certificate which shows his date of birth as 10th December, 1978.
Thus, he was about 16 years of age at the time of taking the sample.
Section 20-AA of the Act, 1958 states that the Act, 1958 shall be
applicable to a person convicted of an offence under this Act, who is loss
than 18 years of age. Since the petitioner less then 18 years of age at the
time of talking the sample and had suffered protracted trial for the last
about 12 years, so it is a fit case where the concession of probation
should be given to him.20
Offence of the nature of testing school girl were becoming very
common and the Court cannot also shut their eyes to what is happening.
In the instant case, it is not disputed that the petitioner was bellow 21
years of age and he would thus come within the purview of Sec. 6 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The report of the Probation Officer had
(18)
also been called for and it is on the record. Considering all the aspects of
the matter, the Patna High Court did not think that it is a first case, in
any way, in which the powers under the Act, 1958 should be exercised.21
The question whether Sec. 354 of the Indian Pannel Code, Should
or Should not attract the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 must be decided on the circumstance of the particular case
because each case will be regulated by its own circumstance.
(20)
6. In Gwalior division probation law has been functioning
properly with high cooperation of courts and chief probation
officer.
7. Present probation law is as good as we need and there should
no amendments in probation law.
Researcher has used many tools to prove his hypothesis in the
research work.
The main focus in this research is on the Probation as a technique
of reformation, its origin, meaning, legal provisions available under
Section 360 & Section 361 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
along with Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and
their comparative study with judicial pronouncement.
After the interpretation of findings of empirical research with
special reference to Gwalior division , researchers hypothesis no.
1, 2, 3, has been proved but hypothesis no. 4, 5, 6,7, could not be
proved during the empirical research through collection of data &
findings.
1 Ram Naresh Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1974 cr. L.J. 153 at p. 155.
(22)
Corruption Act wherein the convicted person cannot claim the protection
of the Act, 1958. Section 18 of the Act, 1958 expressly excludes such
offences from the purview of the Act.
THE PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958
The first statutory expression to the penal system reflecting
probation philosophy is to be found in section 562 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898. Later the Children Act, 1908 also empowered
the court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. The
scope of provisions of probation law was extended further by legislation
in 1923 consequent to the Indian Jails Committees Report (1919-1920).
In 1931 the Government of India prepared a Draft Probation of Offenders
Bill and circulated it to the then Provincial governments for their views.
However, the Bill could not be processed due to pre-occupation of the
Provincial Governments. Later, the Government of India, in 1934.
informed the Provincial Governments that there were no prospects of
central legislation being enacted on Probation and they were therefore
free to enact suitable laws on the lines on the Draft Bill.
As a result of the recommendations of the Jail Committee the
Government of Indian decided to have a comprehensive legislation on
probation law in India. To attain this objective, a Bill on Probation of
Offenders was introduced in Lok Sabha on November 18, 1957. On 18th
November, 1957 an amendment to the motion for consideration of the
Bill was accepted by Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha discussed he motion on
November 25-26, 1957 and concurred with the suggestion that the Bill
he referred to a Joint Committee of the Houses. Consequently, a Joint
Committee was formed for considering the Bill to provide for release of
offenders on probation or after due admonition and matters connected
therewith. The Joint Committee handed over its report to Lok Sabha on
25th February, 1958. On the recommendations of the Joint Committee
the Probation of Offenders Bill was introduced in the Parliament.
(23)
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
The question of release of offenders on probation of good conduct
instead of sentencing them to imprisonment has been under
consideration for some time. In 1931, the Government of India prepared
a draft of Probation of Offenders Bill and circulated it to the then Local
Government for their views. However, owing to pre-occupation with other
more important matters, the Bill could not be proceeded with. Later in
1934, the government of India informed Provincial Governments that
there was no prospect of Central legislation being undertaken at the time
and there would be no objection to the Provinces undertaking such
legislation themselves. A few Providences accordingly enacted their own
probation laws.
2. In several States, however, there are no separate probation laws
at all. Even in States where there are probation laws, they are not
uniform nor are they adequate to meet the present requirements. In the
meantime, there has been an increasing emphasis on the reformation
and rehabilitation of the offender as a useful and self-reliant member of
society without subjecting him to the deleterious effect of jail life. In view
of the widespread interest in the probation system in the country, this
question has been re-examined and it is proposed to have a Central law
on the subject which should be uniformly applicable to the States.
3. It is proposed to empower courts to release an offender after
admonition in respect of certain specified offences. It is also proposed to
empower courts to release on probation, in all suitable cases, an offender
found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. In respect of offenders under 21 years of age,
special provision has been made putting restrictions of their
imprisonment. During the period of probation, offenders with remain
under the supervision of the probation officers in order that they may be
(24)
reformed and become useful members of society. The Bill seeks to
achieve these objects.
22 Raval & Co. v. K.G. Ramachandran, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 818 at p. 821: (1974) 1
S.C.C. 424.
23 (2000) (5) S.C.C. 8.
24 Commandant, 20 B.N., I.T.B. Police v. Sanjay Binjola, 2001 (2) All. Cr.L.R. 668 at pp.
572.
28 State of Mysore v. K. Basappa, A.I.R. 1953 Mys. 75 at p. 80: (1953) Mys. 79.
29 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shankar Lal, 1990 (3) Crimes 324 at p. 326 (H.P.)
(28)