2. INTRODUCTION
The term ‘probation’ is derived from the latin
word ‘probare’ which means ‘to test’ or ‘to
prove’.
Etymologically, probation means ‘I prove my
worth’.
Probation of offenders has been widely
accepted as one of the non-institutional
methods of dealing with corrigible offenders,
particularly the young offenders and the first
offenders.
2
3. PROBATION
Probation is a period of supervision over an
offender, ordered by the court instead of
serving time in prison.
It can be understood as the conditional
release of an offender on the promise of
good behaviour.
It aims at rehabilitation of offenders by
returning them to society during the period
of supervision rather than sending them into
an unnatural and socially unhealthy
atmosphere of prisons.
3
4. DEFINITIONS
According to Don M Gottfriedson – “Probation is
a procedure by which a convicted person is
released by the Court without imprisonment
subject to conditions imposed by the Court. Thus
Probation is part of the decision –making process
of judges at the time of sentencing”.
According to Donald Taft- “Probation is the
postponement of final judgement or sentence in a
criminal case, giving the offender an opportunity
to improve his conduct and to readjust himself to
the community, often on condition imposed by the
court and under the guidance or supervision of an
officer of the court.”
4
5. JUVENILE PROBATION
Juvenile probation is a form of sentencing that allows young
offenders to remain in their communities while under the
supervision of the court.
During the probationary period, a juvenile may be required to
follow certain terms or conditions.
Probation can be used at the front end of the juvenile’s sentence
instead of confinement for low-risk and first-time offenders, or
it can be used at the end of sentencing for those juveniles
incarcerated in a juvenile facility.
6. Juvenile probation programs are ideally
set up to help young people correct their
behaviours without removing them from
their communities.
The offenders are not adults, and they
depend on their parents or guardians for
a place to sleep, food to eat, and clothes
to wear.
They also, whether they want to or not,
have to rely on adults to guide them.
6
7. PHILOSOPHY UNDERLYING PROBATION
The philosophy underlying probation is based on
the assumption that most persons who become
criminals do so because of their environment and
special circumstances and that in suitable cases
it is possible to change the conditions which led
to a person’s fall from proper standards and
reclaim him as a sound normal citizen.
8. In case of juvenile probationers, non-criminal
procedure is adopted and it is less formal. Juvenile
offenders may not want to accept help from
guardians or parents, but juvenile probation officers
rely on adults close to the young people to
encourage and assist in the program.
Probation is a treatment reaction to law-breaking
and an attempt to mitigate the rigours of the
offenders rather than making him suffer
incarceration in the prison institution.
9. AIM AND OBJECTIVE OF PROBATION
The main aim and object of probation is to
permanently reform the law breakers.
It involves moulding the habits into constructive
ways by rehabilitation and reformation.
The objective is to give a chance to the anti-
social person to willingly cooperate with society.
It will give him social protection and security.
It acts as a substitution for imprisonment.
The object of Probation Law is more to reform
the offender than to punish him.
9
10. PROBATION IN USA
John Augustus, the "Father of Probation,"
is recognized as the first true probation
officer.
In America John Augustus, a shoe-maker
of Boston in 1841 volunteered to stand bail
for a person charged with drunkenness in a
local court.
Probation law was formally enacted in
Massachusetts for the first time in 1878
and probation officers were appointed for
the city of Boston. 10
11. Establishing probation as a sentencing option in the
federal courts did not happen quickly or easily.
The first bills for a federal probation law had been
introduced in Congress in 1909. But it was not until 1925
and after more than 30 bills had been introduced that
one such bill became law.
The Probation Act of 1925, signed by President Calvin
Coolidge, provided for a probation system in the federal
court.
11
12. It gave the courts the power to suspend the
imposition or execution of sentence and place
defendants on probation for such period and on
such terms and conditions as they deemed best.
The Act also authorized courts to appoint one
or more persons to serve as probation officers.
The first federal probation officer was
appointed in 1927 in the District of
Massachusetts.
12
13. Initially, the administration of federal probation was the
responsibility of the Office of the Attorney General in the
U.S. Department of Justice.
Direct supervision fell to the superintendent of prisons, who
was also in charge of prison industries and parole.
The Attorney General set their salaries and provided for
expenses such as clerical services and travel.
This arrangement changed in 1940, when general oversight of
the probation system was transferred from the Federal
Bureau of Prisons to the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts.
14. 1925: President Calvin Coolidge signs the Probation Act of 1925,
establishing probation as a sentence in the federal courts.
1927: The first federal probation officer, Richard Mc Sweeney, is
appointed in the District of Massachusetts.
1930: creates the National Parole Board and amends the Probation
Act to give officers responsibility to supervise federal parolees.
1937: The first issue of the scholarly journal Federal Probation is
published.
15. 1943: The first policy monograph, The Presentence
Investigation Report, tells officers how to conduct
presentence investigations and prepare reports.
1946: Officers take on the duty of investigating the parole
plans of Army and Air Force prisoners and supervising them
following release from disciplinary barracks.
1950: A national training centre is established in Chicago to
provide officers with orientation and refresher training.
1963: The Judicial Conference of the United States forms a
permanent committee—the Committee on the Administration
of the Probation System—expressly to address probation
system issues.
16. 1975: Pre-trial services agencies are established as an
experiment in ten districts.
The Judicial Conference of the United States adopts a policy
that allows each district court to decide whether officers carry
firearms.
1978: Congress gives the Director of the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts the authority to provide contract aftercare
treatment services to drug-dependent persons under probation
system supervision.
1982: President Ronald Reagan signs the Pre-trial Services Act,
which authorizes expansion of pre-trial services to each district
court.
17. 1984: The Bail Reform Act allows judges to consider danger to
the community as a factor in deciding whether to release or
detain persons awaiting trial.
1985: The Bail Reform Act radically changed the pre-trial
process in that it permitted courts to detain dangerous
defendants.
1986: The Sentencing Reform Act fundamentally changes the
sentencing process in the federal courts.
1986: U.S. Probation Officer Thomas Gahl (Southern District
of Indiana) is killed in the line of duty.
18. 1986: The home confinement program is
launched in the federal courts.
1989: Probation officers begin to receive for
supervision persons sentenced to serve a term
of supervised release.
Phasing out parole and tightening sentencing
requirements changed community supervision.
The introduction of supervised release and
increases in drug prosecutions and other
serious cases caused a shift away from
probation cases.
18
19. 1999: The Judicial Conference of the United States adopts a policy
requiring updated background investigations for officers and officer
assistants.
2000: The Judicial Conference of the United States adopts a
workplace drug testing program for officers and officer assistants
and a zero tolerance policy for the use of controlled substances.
2001: Officers take on responsibility to obtain DNA samples from
persons under their supervision who have been convicted of certain
crimes.
2002: The Judicial Conference of the United States adopts medical
requirements and guidelines for officers and officer assistants.
2005: A national training academy for new officers is established at
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centre (FLETC) in Charleston,
South Carolina.
20. PROBATION IN UK
✔ Matthew Davenport Hill, a lawyer from England is
noted to have contributed to the development of
modern probation.
✔ Hill had witnessed the sentencing of youthful
offenders to one-day terms on the condition that
they be returned to a parent or guardian who
would closely supervise them.
20
21. Hertfordshire printer Frederic Rainer, a volunteer with
the Church of England Temperence Society(CETS),
writes to the society of his concern about the lack of
help for those who come before the courts.
The CETS responds by appointing two missionaries to
Southwark court with initial aim of “reclaiming
drunkards”.
In 1905 a separate court for the trial of teenage
criminals was established earlier in 1905.
22. The system of Probation received statutory
recognition in 1907 with the enactment of Probation
of Offenders Act in that year.
Separate probation officers were appointed for
adults and children under the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1907.
The act was amended in 1908 and again in 1914.
Criminal Justice Act, 1948 extended probation
through out England as a measure of correctional
method of treatment.
22
23. The entire country is divided into a number of probation areas
for this purpose, each having a fixed number of probation
officers to help and advise the courts.
Probation for women was introduced in England at a much later
stage than for adult males, but it yielded wonderful results so
far rehabilitation of female offenders is concerned.
The English Criminal Justice Act, 1982 suggested
reorganization of Probation Committees for the purpose of
redressing the situation.
24. CULLEN v. ROGERS
✔ The House of Lords held that there was no power to include in a
probation order a requirement that the probationer should attend a
day-centre caused considerable alarm.
✔ The system of probation, supervision and conditional release on licence
is now practised as an effective after-care programme for treatment
and rehabilitation of offenders in United Kingdom.
✔ In deciding whether an accused should be allowed or denied the benefits
of release on probation, the English Court are generally guided by policy
considerations.
24
25. PICKETT V. FESQ (1949) ALL ER 705
In this case, an elderly woman of small means
pleaded guilty of a charge of having attempted to take
out of the country 85 sterling knowing it well that she
could take only 5 sterling under the Exchange Control
Act,1947.
She pleaded that the money had to be taken to Italy
where her son was without any work and was in great
financial distress.
25
26. PICKETT V. FESQ (1949) ALL ER 705
She was released on probation but in appeal
it was held that respondent’s offence being
deliberate one, should not have been taken
lightly by the trial court.
The case was therefore, remitted to trial
court with a direction that the probation
order be withdrawn and respondent should
be punished for the offence which related to
country’s economy.
26
27. In 2000, the Criminal Justice and Court
Services Act renames the probation service
as the National Probation Service for
England and Wales, replacing 54 probation
committees with 42 local probation boards
and establishing 100% Home office funding
for the probation service.
In 2004 the National Offender Management
Service is established with the aim of
reducing reoffending through more
consistent and effective offender
management.
27
28. PROBATION IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
In European Countries, Probation is being extensively
used as an effective after-care remedy for the
treatment of juvenile offenders.
In France, Germany and Russia, probation has been
adopted to a measure of social defence.
In Austria, probational remedies are mandatory for
offenders under eighteen years of age.
Greece accepted probation as a correctional measure
in 1951.
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Switzerland, Netherland and
other countries of the European Union have a similar
system of probation.
29. ✔ Sweden is internationally known for its progressive
penal philosophy and initiative in the correctional field.
✔ Twenty percentage of the total number of offenders
are sent to prison while the remaining 80% are
subjected to correctional treatment methods such as
probation, parole, half-way houses and work centres.
PROBATION IN SWEDEN
29
30. • The supervision of offenders under probation is
entrusted to the “Commission of Trust” consisting
of volunteers who seek advice from probation
officer.
• Efforts are also being made to intensify treatment
and supervisory services through probation in non-
institutional sector.
30
31. PROBATION SYSTEM IN JAPAN
Progressive treatment system for offenders has found
statutory recognition in the administration of criminal
justice in Japan.
The Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure, 1922 expressly
stipulated the discretionary power of the public
prosecutors in matter of suspension of prosecution and
execution of sentence.
The offenders, particularly the juvenile delinquents, are
placed under probationary supervision.
32. 32
The system of granting probationary
supervision to those who are granted
suspension of the execution of sentence
was fully introduced in Japan in 1955.
Twenty percentage offenders are
allowed probation under supervision
while eighty percentage are given
probation without supervision.
There is a network of probation
supervision officers to look after the
probationers.
33. PROBATION IN INDIA
The probation of offenders is not a new concept to
ancient Indian polity.
Its existence as a social process can be traced to
antiquity to the times of the epic periods.
As a social process it is based on the inherent
goodness of the individual and his bad qualities are
only manifestations of the socio-economic milieu of
the society at a particular phase of the evolution
of society.
34. ANCIENT PERIOD.
The ideas envisaged by the Smriti writers (300 B.C) is that the
punishment must be regulated by consideration of the motive
and nature of the offence, the time and place, the strength,
age, conduct, learning and economic position of the offender
and above all, by the fact whether the offence was repeated.
The Smriti writers were aware of the complexities of human
nature and they paid due attention to individuality of an
offender in criminology.
In their writings there was no direct reference of release of
offenders on probation yet their views seem to support the
modern concept of probation.
35. • Yajnavalkya laid down that having ascertained
the guilt, the place and time, as also the
capacity, the age and means of the offender,
punishment should be given to those deserving
it.
• Kautilya in his Arthashastra advised the king
to award punishment which should neither be
mild nor severe.
• Narada prescribed a lesser punishment for the
first offender found guilty of an offence.
• Vishnu said that the king should pardon no one
for having offended twice.
35
36. × Apashtamba said that a spiritual teacher, a
priest and a prince may protect a criminal
from punishment by their intercession in
case of grave offence.
× Thus the Smriti writers were aware of the
principle that a reformation or correction of
offender.
× In Brahmabaibarta Purana Lord Mahadev
told to Brahmba that if people commit
offence it is the duty of pious man to
forgive him.
36
37. Maurya rulers were in favour of mild punishment .
One of the edicts of the Emperor Ashoka
contains provision for remission of punishment.
Ashoka advised his officers to examine and
reduce punishment awarded to prisoners and
consideration of circumstances which
substantially coincide with those mentioned by
Smriti writers.
37
38. MEDIEVAL PERIOD
✔ During the Muslim reign in India up to advent of British rulers,
the administration of criminal justice was based on Islamic
criminal law which did not recognize principles of correctional
method or admonition.
✔ But during Maratha rule and Peshwa period we get traces of
principles of probation if we take the concept of probation in a
very broad sense.
38
39. MODERN PERIOD
BEFORE INDEPENDENCE.
✔ The probation system almost rooted in ancient Indian criminology but
found its legal recognition for the first time in 1898 by section 562 of
the Cr. P.C.
✔ S.562 was amended by the amendment of Cr. P.C. in 1923 which
radically changed the law of Probation in India.
✔ S.562 did not contain any specific provision empowering an appellate
court or a High Court as a court of Revision in matters of probation
which was provided in new section.
39
40. 40
✔ The Children’s Act, 1908 empowered the court to release
certain offenders on probation of good conduct.
✔ The then Government appointed a committee in 1916 to
consider the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
It suggested revision of Section 562 and extension of its
provisions to other cases also.
✔ The Government of India in 1931, prepared a draft of Probation
of offenders Bill and circulated it to the then Provisional
Government for their view.
✔ The Bill could not be proceeded further due to pre-occupation
of the provincial Governments.
41. The Government of India in 1934, informed the
local governments that there were no prospects
of a central legislation being enacted on
probation and they were free to enact suitable
laws on the lines of the draft Bill.
Consequently some of the provinces enacted
probation laws which assumed considerable
importance because they introduced for the
first time provisions regarding pre-sentence
enquiry report of probation officer.
41
42. AFTER INDEPENDENCE
PROBATION CONFERENCE.
✔ A Probation Conference was held in Bombay in 1952 on the advice of
Dr. Walter Reckless, the United Nations Technical Expert on
Correctional Services.
✔ This conference was a milestone in the progress of probation law in
India.
✔ He addressed the Conference as a U.N technical expert and gave
valuable suggestions on Prison Administration in India.
42
43. PROBATION CONFERENCE
The All India Jail Manual Committee was formed to review the
working of Indian jails and suggest measures for reform in the
system.
The Committee in its report of 1957 pointed out that there was no
liaison between the government, the Probation personnel, the
police, and the prison administrators in implementation of the
probation law.
The Committee highlighted the need for a central law on probation
with greater emphasis on release of offenders on probation of
good conduct so that they are reclaimed as self-reliant members
of society without being subjected to deleterious effects of
prison life.
44. JUVENILE JUSTICE CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
ACT, 2000.
✔ The Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000
which came into force with effect from December 30, 2000.
✔ It extends to whole of India excepting the State of Jammu and
Kashmir.
✔ The Act further provides for the release of children who have
committed offences, on probation of good conduct and placing them
under the care of their parents or guardians or other fit persons
executing a bond.
45. JUVENILE JUSTICE CARE AND PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN ACT, 2000
The bond can be executed with or without sureties.
The probation is aimed at good behaviour and well being
of the juvenile.
According to the Act probation can be for any period not
exceeding three years.
Before allowing a child on probation, the Juvenile Justice
Board may make suitable enquiries.
46. THE NATIONAL LAW ON PROBATION.
THE PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958.
The new era in the field of probation started in India by
enactment of the Probation of Offenders Act,1958 by the
Parliament of India.
Certain provisions of Probation of Offenders Act are applicable
to adults also.
Provisions of the Act are not only confined to offences
committed under the Indian Penal Code but they extend to
offences under other special laws such as the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947; the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954; the Customs Act, 1980; the Conservation of Foreign
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974.
47. SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT
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.
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.
47
48. × 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.
× 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.
48
49. 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.
The Act offers extra protection for people
under the age of twenty-one to prevent
sentencing him to prison. However, a person
found guilty of a crime punishable by life
imprisonment cannot have this clause.
49
50. × 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.
× Under the terms of this Act, the Act
empowers the Judge to try and sentence the
defendant to jail. The High Court or any
other Court may even make such an order
when the case is put before it on appeal or in
revision.
50
51. The Act offers a significant function for
probation officers to support the Court and
oversee the probationers under its supervision
and to guide and support them in seeking
appropriate work.
This Act shall come into force in a State on such
date as the Government of the State may
designate, by notice in the Official Gazette. It
also gives state governments the right to put the
Act into force on multiple dates in different
parts of the State.
51
52. 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 State Of Gujarat v. V.A. Chauhan, 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.
52
53. 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 by the
Supreme Court that Section 4 would not be
extended to the culprit who was found guilty of
abducting a teenage girl and forcing her to sexual
submission with a commercial motive.
53
54. No benefit to habitual offenders
✔ In the case of Kamroonissa v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1974 SC 2117, the appellant was charged with the theft of
gold. She was punished with rigorous imprisonment and
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.
55. RAMAMURTHY
v.
STATE OF
KARNATAKA
The Supreme Court observed that it really
results in suspension of Sentence, as the
person released on probation is required to
execute a bond under the provisions of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 requiring
maintenance of good conduct during the
probationary period and failure to do so,
finds the person concerned in prison again.
55
56. RAMAMURTHY
v.
STATE OF
KARNATAKA
◦ It must be stated that while disposing of
the offender on probation the judges are
confronted with the crucial task of
striking a balance between the protection
of society on the one hand and the
correction of offender on the other.
◦ The magistracy cannot afford to dispose
of the convict without taking into
consideration the nature and gravity of
the offence and potentialities for
reformation of the criminal.
56
57. 57
Thus, it would be seen that though
probation as a treatment reaction to
crime presupposes greater emphasis on
the offender than the offence, in
practice it involves equal importance to
offence as well.
This contention finds support in a
number of judicial decisions of the
courts.
58. No benefits of probation in sexual offences.
The benefits of release on Probation is specifically denied to
cases involving sex perversity.
CASE LAW.
Krishna Chandra v. Harbans Singh(1967) Raj LW 101.
The accused, an educated young man was found guilty of having
committed house-trespass in his neighbour’s house and
committed rape on the said neighbour’s wife. The Court held
that the offender cannot be admitted to the benefits of
probation keeping in view the nature of the offence and
depravity of the offender.
59. 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.
60. State of
Sikkim
v.
Dorjee
Sherpa And
Ors.
In this 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
60
61. “
The Act is not applicable if the
offender is found guilty of an
offence with death or
imprisonment for life.
61
62. IMPORTANT SECTIONS.
Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders
Act, 1958 talks about the release of the
offender on the basis of good conduct.
The Act provides conditions to be considered to
extend the benefits of probation to any
convicted offenders.
62
63. .
◦ Section 6 of the Probation of the Offenders
Act, 1958 talks about the restrictions 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 of life or death.
63
64. Section 7 of the Probation of the offenders Act, 1958
deals with the clause that the report of the probation
officer is kept confidential.
No Probation Officer’s report is necessary to apply
‘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.
64
65. AMMINII V. STATE OF KERALA (1981)Cri. L.J. 1170 ( Kerala )
The accused was a woman convicted under S.55 (g) of Abkari
Act but she had no distillery operated by her and only selling
liquor as sole bread winner of large family having chronically
sick husband in home.
Held that the accused should have been released under
Section 4 of the PO Act.
66. Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 widens
the scope of probation by adding an enabling provisions
regarding the competence of the Courts to make order under
the Act in appeal and revisions of the appellate courts in this
regard.
The higher Courts have been empowered to grant probation in
appropriate cases, which was denied to the accused by the
lower court.
They may also cancel probation granted by the trial court,
where it is expedient in order to prevent the misuse of
probation.
67. WHO IS A
PROBATION
OFFICER?
67
◦ A probation official is a court officer
who regularly meets people sentenced to
a supervised probation period.
◦ The majority of the offenders placed on
probation are first time offenders.
◦ Placing any one on probation is a way for
the court to prevent offenders from
incarceration.
68. PROBATION
OFFICER
◦ Many that are on probation live in our
neighbourhoods, stay home, are working or
participating in an educational program,
and raise their children.
◦ The justice system’s objective is to have a
person who is put on probation as a
responsible member of society while
retaining contact with his or her family
and community support sources.
68
69. PROBATION
OFFICER
◦ Once on probation, a person may be
ordered to engage in an evaluation of drug
abuse or domestic violence to determine if
treatment is necessary.
◦ Moreover, by doing breath analyzer or
urinalysis tests, people may need to assist
in tracking sobriety. Another typical
condition is for an individual to continue
his/her education and/or work.
69
70. Responsibilities
of Probation
Officer
◦ A probation officer will need to meet, on a
monthly or sometimes weekly basis, their
client.
◦ Based on an assessment of risk/needs, the
probation officer may decide the degree of
supervision that a person requires
(minimum, medium or maximum).
◦ It helps to determine how much assistance
a person requires.
◦ Evaluations assess how a person is engaged
in a group, often referred to as their
community relations. The assessment also
checks how likely another person will
commit more crimes. 70
71. Responsibilities
of Probation
Officer.
• Any time a probation client visits his/her
probation officer, a report form needs to
be filled out.
• Meeting with a client allows the probation
officer to see where additional support is
required in order for the client to succeed.
• Therefore, when a person starts at a
maximum supervisory level (weekly
meetings), this does not mean that they
must remain at this level during their
probationary period.
• Probation officers are required to regularly
revise the case plan of a probationer.
71
72. Duties of Probation Officer
Pursuant to the Probation of Offenders Act 1958
– Section 14 gives details concerning the duties of
probation officers that, subject to such conditions
and limitations as may be imposed, a probation
officer is expected to do:
Investigate the circumstances or domestic
environment of any person accused of an offence
with the intention, in accordance with any direction
of the Court, to help the Court to determine and
report the most appropriately advised approach to
his dealing with it.
72
73. .
Supervising probationers and other persons
under his supervision and seeking suitable
employment where necessary.
Counselling and supporting victims in the
payment by the Court of penalties or costs.
Advice and assist persons released pursuant
to Section 4 in such situations and manner as
may be prescribed.
73
74. 74
A probation agent, as laid down in
Section 14 of the Act, has main
functions, such as investigation,
supervision and guidance, counselling and
professional control of criminal
probation.
As an inspiring, guiding and supporting
probationer, this probation officer
facilitates the rehabilitation of the
criminal as a law-abiding member of
society.
75. PROTECTION TO PROBATION OFFICER FOR
ACTS DONE IN GOOD FAITH.
× Section 15 of the P.O Act, 1958 specifies that
Probation Officer shall be deemed to be a public
servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the
Indian Penal Code whereas section 16 affords him
protection against legal proceedings for action
taken in good faith in discharge of his duties in
pursuance of the P.O Act or rules made there
under.
× In Harbhajan Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1966
SC 97, observed that ‘good faith’ is a question of
fact and must be considered on the facts and
circumstances of each case.
75
76. Other
enactments
describing the
provisions of
probation.
76
◦ In addition to the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958, the provisions of Section 360 and
27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection
of Children Act, 2015 also provide for the
release of certain offenders on probation.
◦ The provisions include:
◦ a) Section 360 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, provides the rationale of
protection which is extended to young
offenders under the Indian law.
77. ✔ Firstly, the Section excludes certain types of offences from
the purview of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
✔ Secondly, the section prescribes certain age-limit for
offenders to be admitted for release on probation; and
✔ Thirdly, the section explicitly provides that probation
applies only to the first offenders. It is thus evident that
the law suggests a selective application of the probation
service to only those offenders who are likely to respond
favourably to the rehabilitative processes.
78. Section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, provides
that any offence not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, committed by any person who at the
date when he appears or is brought before the court, is
under the age of sixteen years, may be tried by the court
of a judicial Magistrate or by any Court specially
empowered or any other law for the time being in force
providing for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of
youthful offenders.
79. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
has come into force from January 15, 2016 and repeals the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and contains
many provisions of Probation.
Section 18 of the lays down that the child in conflict with law may
be released on probation on good conduct and the child who is kept
under Children’s Home or Special Home can also be released from
the institutional home on certain conditions.
80. SCOPE OF
PROBATION
UNDER SECTION
360 OF CR.P.C
AND PROBATION
OF OFFENDERS
ACT COMPARED.
80
◦ The provisions of Section 360 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, permits no discretion
whereas there is always a need to investigate in
each case whether probation will suit to the
requirements of the delinquent or not.
◦ The probation law in India permits release on
probation of even the adult offenders who are
not recidivists and show potentiality for re-
adjustment to normal life in society. Obviously,
the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not apply in such
cases.
81. 81
The Probation of Offenders Act has done away with
the distinction on the basis of age or sex and as such all
the offenders whether below 21 or above 21 years of
age are equally entitled to avail the benefits of release
on probation of good conduct.
Grant of probation is not confined to first offenders as
in case of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. The Court is
competent to release a previous convict on probation if
it thinks it proper to do so having regard to the
circumstances of the case including the character of
the offender and nature of the offence.
Thus the scope of the Probation of Offenders Act is
far more wider than the provisions of Section 360 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
82. CHHANNI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
× The Court reiterated that the enforcement of
Probation Act in particular area excludes the
applicability of provisions of Section 360 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
× The scope of section 4 of the P.O Act is much
wider than Section 360 of Cr. P.C. which relates
only to person not under the age of 21 years,
convicted for offence punishable with fine only
or with imprisonment up to 7 years, and any
woman convicted of an offence not punishable
with death or imprisonment for life.
82
83. 83
✔ The power under the Probation of Offenders Act can be exercised
by any Magistrate whereas such power under Section 360 Cr.P.C. is
restricted to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class.
✔ The important feature of the Probation Act is the provision
regarding placement of the offender under the supervision of a
probation officer. But there is no such provision under Section
360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
✔ Section 360 of Cr.P.C does not provide for any role for probation
officers in assisting the courts in relation to supervision and other
matters while the Probation of Offenders Act does make such a
provision.
84. JUDICIAL TREND
✔ The role of courts in bringing about rehabilitation of
offenders need not be over-emphasised.
✔ The final verdict as to whether an offender deserves to be
admitted to the benefits of release on probation or not, lies
with the court.
✔ The decision as regards the release of an offender on
probation is to be taken only after his guilt is proved.
84
85. ✔ Justice S M. Sikri, the former Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of India, in his inaugural address on the
eve of Probation Year on May 7, 1971, observed that:
✔ “Not only the probation officers should be convinced of
the advantages of the probation but the judiciary and the
bar must become its votaries. Unfortunately, at present
very little serious attention is paid to the aspect by the
judiciary or the Bar”.
86. 86
Mr. Justice P. B Gajendragadkar, the former CJI,
commented regarding the theme of probation law
during a valedictory address before the National
Correctional Conference on Probation held at
New Delhi in October 1971.
‘’Probation, in its proper perspective should lead
us to the consideration of a much larger problem
of basis of our jurisprudence and our
administration of criminal law on human, scientific
and rational lines...punishment is no longer
regarded as reformative or retributive, but is
regarded as rehabilitative”.
87. Ranjit Singh v. The State
× The High Court of Patna awarded a sentence
of six years simple imprisonment and a fine
of rupees one thousand to the accused for
the offence of forgery under Sections 467,
468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
× Denying the benefits of release on Probation
to the accused the Court observed that the
case deserved no compassion keeping in view
the nature and gravity of the offence and
the standing of accused as a pleader having a
lucrative practise.
87
88. Uttam Singh v. Delhi Administration
× The appellant was convicted under Section
292 IPC for being in possession of three
packets of playing cards and some obscene
photographs.
× He was sentenced to six months rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of rupees five
hundred.
× Having regard to the age of the accused and
the circumstances of the case, the Supreme
Court refused to allow him the benefit of
release on probation as he was a potential
danger to society.
88
89. Sachu Ray v. State of Assam
× In this case, the accused was about 19 or 20
years of age and had no previous criminal
antecedents, was sentenced to one year’s
rigorous imprisonment.
× The accused was of a tender age and the
offence was committed ten years ago, the
Supreme Court directed him to be released
on Probation of good conduct with a bond of
Rs. 1,000 with one surety of like amount.
89
90. V. R KRISHNA IYER ON PROBATION
Justice V.R Krishna Iyer, former judge of the Supreme
Court, expressing his views on probation and other
correctional services in the National Correctional
Conference on the Probation and Allied Measures
held in October 1971 at New Delhi observed:
“Twenty-five years of freedom have not freed out
judiciary from the obsolescent British Indian
penology, bearing on suppression of crime. And it is
time for our magistracy to bend to the winds of
social changes.....”
90
91. V. R KRISHNA IYER ON PROBATION
• “The 20th century approach to crime and punishment is,
for us, of Gandhian vintage but runs counter to the
traditional theory of harsh deterrence writ large in the
Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. The
ghosts of Macauley and men of his ill haunt our criminal
courts still, so much so, that probation fairs ill in the law
courts. Twenty-five years of freedom have not freed our
judiciary from the obsolescent British Indian ideology
bearing on suppression of crime.”
92. PIT-FALLS IN PROBATION SYSTEM IN INDIA
✔ It is difficult in many situations to
determine whether the criminal is a first
offender or a recidivist. There is, therefore,
a possibility that an offender who is
otherwise recurrent may be admitted to
probation and may not react favourably to
this technique of correction.
93. • Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, a
main provision of the Act, does not make it
compulsory to supervise a person released on
probation unless the court orders release a
person on probation after entering into a bond
with or without immunity. This is not in line with
the probation philosophy which considers
supervision important to the offender’s interests.
94. Section 6 of the Act allows the court to take into account the
report of the probation officer when it is appropriate to take
a decision to grant or deny probation to an offender under
the age of 21, but many times court decisions are made
without any report. Again, this goes against the spirit of
morality that is enshrined in the Probation Act. This is
basically because of the poor judicial system.
The lack of real interest in social service among the probation
personnel presents a major problem in selecting the right
persons for this arduous job.
95. CONCLUSION
The benefit of probation can be usefully applied to
cases where persons on account of family discord,
destitution, loss of near relatives, or other causes
of like nature, attempt to put an end to their own
lives.
Its aim is to reform the offender and to make
him see the right path.
It would be of great help to a country like India
where the prisons are always overcrowded, with
regular abuses of human rights that will harden a
person’s inside.
Probation is the divine affirmation inside every
being and it has to be given importance.
95
96. In order to accomplish the ultimate purpose of reclaiming
all criminals back into organized society, the reform and
recovery process must be carried out in the sense of the
current social situation.
Along with the juvenile justice system, probation has taken
the human interests and socio-economic issues underlying
the principles of crime and punishment to the forefront.
It helped to build positive views towards prisoners and
expanded the role of enforcing criminal justice beyond
standard sentencing.
CONCLUSION.
