Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Probation of Offenders Act. - It is incumbent upon the court to give benefit of proba- tion where the offenders are entitled to it as provided in Section 360 of the Code; unless the courts find that the convicts are incorrigible and cannot be reformed. The object of punish- ment is not only to be rebutritive but also to be reformative. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, the petitioner is given one chance to reform himself. Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act lay down that when any person under 21 years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment, but not with imprisonment for life, the court by which the accused is found guilty shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders it will not be desirable to deal with him under section 3 or 4 of the Act and if the court passes any sentence of imprisonment, it shall record its reasons for doing so. The provisions of section 6 are mandatory and must be complied with and if the court thinks that the sentence of imprisonment should be imposed then it must comply with the provisions of section 6 of that Act. In that instant case the lower courts did not comply with the provisions of Section 6(2) and without assigning any reason awarded sentence of imprisonment and fine to the accused which is illegal. Accused convicted under Excise Act - Minimum sentence of six months prescribed under the Act - Accused whether can be released on probation when minimum sentence is prescribed - In the instant case accused faced protracted trial for 14 years - Accused released on probation. 1980 CriLJ 1218 and 1985(1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 36 relied. Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) RCR(Criminal) 176(P&H) Recovery of one Kg. of Charas - Conviction of accused - Incident 16 years old - Benefit of probation refused - Sentence reduced to already undergone. Umed Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 723(P&H) Recovery of working still and illicit liquor in the year 1985 - Accused convicted and sen- tenced to one year RI and fine of Rs. 5000 - Accused a five time convict and benefit of proba- tion given to him on earlier occasion which did not act as deterrent to him - Conviction upheld - Probation refused Dial Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(3) RCR(Crimina9 44(P&H) Recovery of illicit liquor - Accused convicted and sentenced to six months R.I. - Accused suffering agony of criminal proceedings for 16 years - Sentenced reduced to three months. Jagga Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(3) RCR(Criminal) 31 (P&H) Accused convicted and sentenced under Section 6l(1)(a) - Accused a first offender - Recov- ery 14 years old - Released on probation. Rachhpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 405(P&H) Recovery of 120 bottles of illicit liquor - Accused convicted and sentenced to six months RI and fine of Rs. 1,000 - Accused suffering agony of trial for 16 years - Accused allowed benefit of probation Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 734(P&H) Recovery of Charas - conviction of accused under S. 61(1)(a) - Accused faced agony of criminal proceedings for 15 years - Conviction upheld, but accused released on probation. Vel Pal v. State of Haryana, 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 183 (P&H) Recovery of illicit liquor - Case based on official witnesses - No evidence of animus against Police witnesses and no dent in their statements - Accused convicted but released on probation being first offender. Bhim Sain v. State of Punjab, 1998(4) RCR(Criminal) 618(P&H) Accused convicted under Excise Act - Incident 16 years old - Accused not a previous convict - Released on probation. Banta Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 766(P&H) Accused found distilling illicit liquor - Recovery of working still and illicit liquor - No inde- pendent witness joined - Held, independent witnesses do not support the Police for several reasons - Non-examination of independent witnesses only fastens the responsibility upon Court to scrutinise the evidence with more care and caution - Conviction upheld - Accused, however, released on probation as offence was 12 years old Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(3) RCR(Criminal) 190(P&H) Probation - Recovery of working still and illicit liquor - Conviction of accused - Lapse of 16 years since recovery - Accused released on probation. Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(3) RCR(Criminal) 51 (P&H) Recovery of illicit liquor - Case based on official witnesses - No evidence of animus against Police witnesses and no dent in their statements - Accused convicted but released on probation being first offender. Recovery of illicit liquor - Conviction of accused under Excise Act - Accused an old man, first offender and having clean antecedents - Accused released on probation. Accused convicted under Excise Act - Accused a young man - Not a previous convict - Ac- cused released on probation - Accused is on the threshold of life - He should be given at least one opportunity to reform himself. Recovery of large quantity of illicit liquor and a working still- Accused convicted - Occur- rence happened 13 years back - Accused 35 years of age - No ground to release the accused on probation - Accused indulged in commercial production of liquor. 1980 PLR 585 (FB) relied. First offender - Recovery of huge quantity of lahan and running still- It shows the accused was running a minor distillery which affected State exchequer and the illicit liquor produced by him affected the health of general public - Such boot leggers are to be dealt with deterrent punishment - Offence punishable with three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- - Accused awarded only one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- - Not entitled to be released on probation. Recovery of 70 bottles of illicit liquor - Conviction of accused - Accused already convicted on four occasions - Accused, though of tender age, but not entitled to benefit of probation - Recovery was quite heavy. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 360. Recovery of working still - Accused less than 21 years of age - Accused convicted under Section 61 (1 )( c) and released on probation - Suffering from agony of trial for 14 years - Object of Probation of offenders Act and Section 360 Cr.P.c. is not only to convict the offender but also to reclaim him. Recovery of Charas - conviction of accused under S. 61(l)(a) - Accused faced agony ~f criminal proceedings for 15 years - Conviction upheld, but accused released on probation. Recovery of 30 bottles of illicit liquor 4 Conviction of accused - Benefit of probation could not be given in view of heavy recovery. It is incumbent upon the court to give benefit of probation where the offenders are entitled to it as provided in Section 360 of the Code, unless the courts find that the convicts are incor- rigible and cannot be reformed. The object of punishment is not only to be rebutritive but also to be reformative. !'Seeping in view the aforesaid principles, the petitioner is given one chance to reform himself. Recovery of Lahan and working still. Accused convicted and sentenced under Section 61 (1)( c). Both the accused first convict~ and faced trial for more than 3-1/2 years. Benefit of probation denied to the accused as both of them were more than 30 years of age and quite matured. Accused well knew about the consequences of their illegal act which was hazardous for public health. Working still recovery from accused and accused convicted. Accused aged late forties, not a previous convict and no further criminal activity came to notice. Accused released on probation. 45 bottles of liquor found from accused. Accused 21/22 years of age. Accused sentenced to imprisonment but released on Probation as the accused left the business of illicit liquor. Recovery of illicit liquor. Accused convicted and sentenced to one year RI. Accused re- leased on probation looking to his age and antecedents. 75 kg. Lahan recovered from accused. Sentence of R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- imposed by trial Court and affirmed by Sessions Judge. Accused a poor labourer and first of- fender. Report of probation officer not called for by trial Court. Benefit of probation denied to accused without considering his age, character and antecedents. Object of also reformative. Accused granted benefit of probation under Section 360 C.P.c. by the High Court. Accused below 21 years of age on the date of his conviction by trial Court. No previous con- viction. Sentence held to be improper. Accused ordered to be released on probation under Sections 4 & 6 of Probation of Offenders Act. Accused convicted under Excise Act. Minimum sentence provided under the Act. Accused whether can be released on probation (Yes). Accused faced trial for 8 long years and not a previous convict. Accused released on probation. 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 496 and 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 703 relied. Recovery of illicit liquor. Conviction of accused. Benefit of probation sought by accused on the ground that he was a poor man and not a previous convict. Benefit not extended as accused was found distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. Accused, however, faced trial for six years. In view of this sentence reduced from one year to six months. Sentence of fine sustained. Recovery of working still. Accused convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000. Accused 30 years of age and not a previous convict. No indulgence of ac- cused in illicit distillation thereafter. Accused released on probation. Accused convicted and sentenced to 1-1/2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Accused a first offender and sole bread earner of family. Accused released on probation Fine also remitted. Accused, however, directed to pay Rs. 5000/- towards cost of litigation. Accused convicted and sentenced under Section 61 (1)(c) of Excise Act. Accused 20 years of age at the time of commission of offence. Accused given the benefit of probation and released . A person involved in an offence under Section 61 (1)( c) of Excise Act can be released on Probation for exceptional reasons. Accused convicted under Excise Act. Accused first offender. Accused released on proba- tion. Probation of Offenders Act is applicable to offences under Excise Act. Court has to re- cord special reasons if benefit of probation is not afforded to accused. Accused convicted under Excise Act. Accused not a previou4 convict. Quantity of illicit liq- uor recovered not very large. Accused released on probation. Accused engaged by licensee for the transport of country made liquor. Permit cSlUld not be taken in time. Accused given benefit of Section 360 Cr. PC and released on bail. Accused were found working a still and distilling liquor. Accused below the age of 19 years at the time of commission of offence can be give~ benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act minimum sentence is provided by the statute. Conviction of accused under Excise Act. Accused released on probations he was in twenties which is a crucial age when he was to decide whether he would lead a life of crime or a life of virtue. Probation of Offenders Act, Sections 4 and 6. Conviction under. Benefit of probation not accorded to accused by the trial Court as well as Appellate Court. No special reasons recorded. High Court ordered release of the convict on probation. Under Section 360(4) C.P.C .. Sentence of imprisonment and fine set aside. Five bottles of illicit liquor recovered. Accused sentenced to R.I. for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 500/- by Sessions Judge. Conviction affirmed by Sessions Judge. However, trial court appearing to have been unnecessarily swayed by the consideration that according to a chit produced by prosecution, accused had been previously convicted five times. Previous convictions of accused not duly proved according to law. Approach of trial Court erroneous . Under the circumstances, accused ordered to be released on probation for one year by High Court and his sentence of imprisonment and fine set aside. Previous convict. Recovery of Working Still. Accused convicted and sentenced. Accused, however, released on probation by Sessions Judge despite the fact that he was previous convict. Appeal against grant of probation before High Court. Order of Sessions Judge not interfered with. Probation Petitioners convicted and sentenced one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. One petitioner 70 years old and the other 25 years old. Nothing to show that they were pre- vious convicts had bad antecedents. Petitioners have been in custody for 3 months. Petitioners released on probation. Recovery of 33930 Mls. of illicit liquor. Benefit of probation. Lower Court pointed out that a sufficiently large quantity of liquor has been recovered but did not say why he was refusing the benefit. Convict young man and not previous convict, released on Probation of good con- duct under Criminal Procedure Code (11 of 1974) Section 360. Recovery of 40 bottles of liquor. Accused convicted. Accused released on probation. From quantity of liquor it cannot be said that accused was a bootlegger. Recovery of 45 bottles illicit of liquor. Accused convicted and sentenced to 6 months R.I and a fine of Rs. 10001-. Occurrence4took place in 1983. Accused on bail since 1983. Fit case to release the accused on probation. Recovery of illicit liquor. Accused convicted and sentenced. Occurrence took place 1 0 year~ back. Accused on bail for 4 years. Accused a first offender. Accused released on probation. Recovery of Lahan. Conviction of accused. Accused 30 years of age. Did not commit the of- fence out of greed. Accused released on probation. Sentence of fine also set aside. Recovery of rectified spirit. Accused convicted. Case prolonged for 9 years after recovery. Accused released on probation. Recovery of Working Still. Accused convicted. Accused released on probation by Sessions Judge. Held, it was not a fit case for probation as minimum punishment prescribed is six months. However two years passed since grant of probation. Not proper to set aside order of probation. Recovery of working still. Conviction of accused under Section 16( 1)( c). Accused 30 years of age. Did not commit offence out of greed. Act of accused not to prove hazardous to public health. Accused released on probation. Sentence of fine also remitted. Recover; of working still. Conviction of accused. Accused below 21 years. Whether entitled to probation. (Yes). If the court wants to deprive the accused of benefit of probation, it is obligatory for court under Section 6 (2) to call for a report of District Probation Officer and give a specific finding that offenders were of such a depraved character which disentitled them benefit of probation. Release on probation sought on the ground of rust offender and family circumstances. Re- port of the Probation Officer recommends the probation for two years. Petitioner ordered to be released on probation on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 3000/-. Sentence of R.I. for 4 months and fine of Rs. 500/- imposed by trial Court. Affirmed by Ses- sions Judge. Revision before the High Court, conviction held to be well-based. However, con- sidering the facts that accused aged 27 years and a first offender, quantity of lahan recovered not very huge, nothing adverse against him regarding his antecedent and character, and possibility of his reformation. It expedient to release him on probation. The provisions of section 6(2) of the Act are mandatory. If the court on conviction decides to release the accused on probation, then the calling the report of the Probation Officer is not necessary. However, if the court decides to award punishment a youthful offender, whose age is less than 21 years, then the calling of the report under section 6(2) of the Act is obligatory and after considering that report and also the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the character of the of{ender it can award the sentence of imprisonment and shall also record reasons for the same. Where the benefit of the provisions of Section 360 Cr. P.C. is not accorded to the accused by the trial court as well as appellate court and no special reasons are recorded by the said courts for withholding that benefit, the High Court exercising the powers under section 360(4) Cr.P.c. can order the release of the convict on probation and the sentence of fine and impris- onment are liable to be set aside. The object of the Probation of Offenders Act is to prevent the turning of youthful offenders into criminals by their association with hardened criminals within the walls of the prison. The method adopted is to attempt their possible reformation instead of inflicting on them the nor- mal punishment for their crime. Where the accused is a young man of22 years and is a student in a college and has no previous conviction for any offence then taking into consideration the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct under section4(1) of the Act. Under section 11(1) of the Act ~e court exercising appellate or original jurisdiction can exercise jurisdiction under that Act. Where the accused is a first offender and is 32 years of age and the quantity of opium recovered from him is only 600 grams, then in such a case he should be released on probation of good conduct under section 360 Cr.P.C.