DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY
VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE – CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PROBABTION&PROBATION OF

OFFENDER ACT

SUBJECT – CRIMINOLOGY

FACULTY – Dr. p. varalaxmi

Name – SHASHI RANJAN KUMAR

Roll No. - 2014109
Semester – 7th Semester

Acknowledgement

1
I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected teacher, P. Sri Sudha for
giving me a golden opportunity to take up this project regarding ― PROTECTION OF
TK(TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE) UNDER SUI GENERIS SYSTEM. I have tried my best
to collect information about the project in various possible ways to depict clear picture about the given
project topic.

Introduction

Mahatma Gandhi once said, "Hate the crime not the criminal". This means that we need to
eliminate crime and eliminating criminals is not the way to do it. While it is true that punishment
gives a sense of satisfaction to the victims and to the society in general, it has been observed that
in most of the cases punishment, specially imprisonment, does not actually reform the criminal. In
most cases, once a person comes out of a prison, he gets back to his old ways of being in conflict
with the law. This is true even more with young criminals, whose minds are not fully mature. They
get influenced in the wrong way because of their interaction with hardened criminals in jails.One
way to counter this problem is to provide opportunities and guidance to young and first time
offenders instead of committing them to jails. The idea behind such treatment is that, normally,
human beings do not resort to crime unless they are forced due exceptional circumstances. If we
want to reduce crime, we should make sure that chance criminals are given an opportunity to get
reformed instead of turning into hardened criminals. This is the aim behind Probation of Offender's
Act, 1958. It allows the court to take into account the nature of the crime, the age of the offender,
and the circumstances of the crime, and instead of committing the offender to jail, release him

2
under supervision and guidance of a probation officer. This ensures that the offender is integrated
back into the society. The act is based on the reformatory approach, which is adopted in many
countries of the world. For example, in USA, almost 60% of the offenders are released on
probation.
The object of probation has been laid down in the judgment of Justice Horwill in In re B. Titus -
S. 562 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 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 make good citizens. In such cases, a term of imprisonment may have the very opposite
effect to that for which it was intended. Such persons would be sufficiently punished by the shame
of having committed a crime and by the mental agony and disgrace that a trialin a criminal court
would involve.It must, however, be kept in mind that reformation does not always work. Some
crimes are so abhorrent and some criminals are so unrepentant that it is best to punish them so that
the price of committing the crime keeps them from committing it again. For some of them, there
is no hope for reform, and it is best to protect the society from them by locking them away for life.

Objectives:

• Demonstrate the need for social work intervention in the criminal justice system viz. at police
stations, prisons, criminal courts and institutions for women and minors.
• Work towards the rehabilitation of persons coming out of or vulnerable to crime or
prostitution.
• Provide support to families of persons in crime/prostitution, especially children to counter
negative influences and prevent criminalization.
• Improve access of citizens in the criminal justice system to their legal rights enshrined in
the Constitution and promote the use of correctional laws towards rehabilitation of
vulnerable groups such as women, youth and children.
• Increase awareness in government and society about issues related to the rehabilitation of
persons affected by crime or prostitution towards law and policy change.
• Generate knowledge in the field of social work, criminology and corrections through the
analysis of field experiences.
Programmes and Intervention:

• Prison: Work with women and young males (18 to 23 years) through offering a range of
services such as legal literacy, family contact, support to families, especially children,
counseling, vocational activities, and networking with NGOs and government
departments such as police, women and child development, health and the judiciary
towards custodial care, pre-release preparation and post-release rehabilitation issues.
• Police station: Counselling, referral and follow-up services to vulnerable groups such as
women, children, youth and psychologically/emotionally disturbed to prevent trafficking, or
their entry into crime, prostitution or other negative lifestyles.
• Criminal court: Legal guidance and referral services to persons approaching the courts -
complainants, accused or their families.
• Protective Institutions for Women: Counselling, vocational activities and networking
with NGOs and government departments such as police, women and child development,

3
health and the judiciary towards custodial care, pre-release preparation, repatriation and
post-release rehabilitation issues.
• Contact-cum-Rehabilitation Unit: Providing a range of services for women, youth and/or
their families approaching Prayas after their release from prison/custodial institution or
referred by clients, ex-clients, police/prison/institutional staff, judiciary, NGOs/CBOs or members
of the community. Services include counseling, legal guidance, arranging
shelter, family support, financial support for emergencies, arranging for medical
treatment or hospitalization, vocational training, educational support, information about
government schemes, access to citizenship rights, and connecting with the NGO sector
towards rehabilitation and mainstreaming.
• Research and Documentation: Conducting studies and documentation of services
provided and issues in the field towards increasing knowledge in the field of criminology
and correction for teaching, training and intervention.
• Policy and Advocacy: Taking up field issues with government departments concerned Le. police,
prison, law and judiciary, women and child development, home, youth affairs and education both
at the State and Central level. Lobbying with national and state level bodies such as NHRC, NCW,
SHRC and SCW to create a climate conducive to rehabilitation of vulnerable groups in criminal
justice. Involvement in PILs both at the Supreme Court and the Mumbai High Court on issues
related to prison conditions, trafficking, children of prisoners, rehabilitation of victims of
commercial sexual exploitation, etc.

Background note

Prison populations have remained at the margins of welfare and social work intervention and have
never been viewed as in need or deserving of social services. With the development of criminology
as a subject of enquiry, a gradual shift has taken place, whereby the individual alone is no more
held responsible for his/her norm or law breaking behaviour. This shift in perspective has led to
the development of an understanding of crime causation, which includes psychological, social,
economic and political factors as being responsible for deviant behaviour in human beings.
The development of psycho-social services for custodial populations is a direct consequence of
this paradigm shift in the understanding of crime. The shift has included a gradual policy shift
away from capital punishment, torture and debilitating forms of punishment ,imprisonment as and
not for punishment, more humane custodial conditions, protection of legal and human rights, and
finally a focus on retraining and rehabilitation.

A Brief history of Probation and Borstal Schools

Probation is a term coined by John Augustus, From the Latin verb"probare" - to prove, to test The
origins of probation can be traced to English criminal law of the Middle Ages. Harsh punishments
were imposed on adults and children alike for offenses that were not always if a serious nature.
Sentences such as branding, flogging, mutilation and execution were common. During the time of
King Henry VIII, for instance, no less than 200 crimes were punishable by death, many of which
were minor offenses. This harshness eventually led to discontent in certain progressive segments
of English society concerned with the evolution of the justice system. Slowly, yet resolutely, in an
effort to mitigate these inhumane punishments, a variety of measures were devised and adopted.
Royal pardons could be purchased by the accused; activist judges could refrain from applying

4
statuses or could opt for a lenient interpretation of them; stolen property could be.devalued by the
court so that offenders could be charged with a lesser crime. Also, benefit of clergy, judicial
reprieve, sanctuary, and abjuration offered offenders a degree of protection from the enactment of
harsh sentences.
Eventually, the courts began the practice of "binding over for good behavior," a form of temporary
release during which offenders could take measures to secure pardons or lesser sentences.
Controversially, certain courts in due time began suspending sentences. In the United States,
particularly in Massachusetts, different practices were being developed."Security for good
behavior," also known as good aberrance, was much like modern bail: the accused paid a fee as
collateral for good behavior. Filing was also practiced in cases that did not demand an immediate
sentence. Using this procedure, indictments were "laid on file" or held in abeyance. To mitigate
unreasonable mandatory penalties, judges often granted a motion to quash based upon minor
technicalities or errors in the proceedings. Although these American practices were genuine
precursors to probation, it is the early use of recognizance and suspended sentence that are directly
related to modern probation.

Two names are most closely associated with the founding of probation: Matthew Davenport Hill,
an 18th century English barrister and judge, and John Augustus, a 19th Century Boston boot-
maker.As a young professional in England, 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. When he eventually became the Recorder of Birmingham, a judicial post, he used
a similar practice for individuals who did not seem hopelessly corrupt. If offenders demonstrated
a promise for rehabilitation, they were placed in the hands of generous guardians who willingly
took charge of them. Hill had police officers pay periodic visits to these guardians in an effort to
tack the offender's progress and to keep a running account.
John Augustus, the "Father of Probation," is recognized as the first true probation officer.Augustus
was born in Woburn, Massachusetts, in 1785. By 1829, he was a permanent resident of Boston
and the owner of a successful boot-making business. It was undoubtedly his membership in the
Washington Total Abstinence Society that led him to the Boston courts. Washingtonians abstained
from alcohol themselves and were convinced that abusers of alcohol could be rehabilitated through
"understanding, kindness and sustained moral suasion, rather then through conviction and jail
sentences.
In 1841, John Augustus attended police court to bail out a "common drunkard," the first
probationer. The offender was ordered to appear in court three weeks later sentencing. He returned
to court a sober man, accompanied by Augustus. To the astonishment of all in attendance, his
appearance and demeanor had dramatically changed,' Augustus thus began an 18-year career as a
volunteer probation officer. Not all of the offenders helped by Augustus were alcohol abusers, nor
were all prospective probationers taker under his wing. Close attention was paid to evaluating
whether or not a candidate would likely prove to be a successful subject of probation. The
offender's character, age and the people, places and things apt to influence him/her were all
considered. Augustus was subsequently credited with founding Investigations, one of three main
concepts of modern probation, the other two being Intake and Supervision. Augustus, who kept
detailed notes on his activities, was also the first to apply the term "probation" to this process of
treating offenders.
By 1858, John Augustus had provided bail for 1,946 men and women, young and old. Reportedly,
only ten of this number forfeited their bond, a remarkable accomplishment whenmeasured against

5
any standard. His reformer's zeal and dogged persistence won him the opposition of certain
segments of Boston society as well as the devotion and aid of many Boston philanthropists and
organizations. The first probation statute, enacted in Massachusetts shortly after this death in 1859,
was widely attributed to his efforts. Following the passage of that first statute, probation spread
gradually throughout the United States and subsequently to many other countries. The juvenile
court movement contributed greatly to the development of probation as a legally recognized
method of dealing with offenders.
The Borstal Schools Act owes its origins to England - a movement towards reform and
rehabilitation of youthful offenders by separating them from adult prisoners and
startingreformatory schools for young offenders with an emphasis on education, vocational
trainingand reform, rather than on punishment and sentencing. The Act was passed in India in
1929 as opposed to the Probation of Offenders' Act, which was passed in 1958. Most States in
thecountry established Borstal Schools to treat youthful offenders differently from adult and
hardened offenders. Maharashtra established its first Borstal School in Kolhapur and this was later
shifted to Nasik, where it presently exists. It has a capacity of around 250 youthful offenders and
the superintendent of the institution is called the principal. The School provides for a range of
vocational training facilities and ITI approved certificate courses in carpentry, wiremanship, and
a host of other vocations.
The Probation of Offenders Act and the Borstal Schools Act are among the earliest legislations
passed in India which have a clearly correctional perspective. These acts were passed with the
objective of focusing on youthful offenders to 'reclaim' this section of society from the world of
crime and negative influences and re-integrate them into themainstream. There is often a
misconception about these legislations mat they are 'soft' andamount to showing leniency towards
the offender, and therefore can only be considered in petty offences or where the offender is very
young. However, the true objective of probation is the Scientific application of criminological and
punishment theories to certain categories of offenders - those who can be corrected and 'reclaimed'
without being imprisoned. It is based on the premise mat every offender does not need to be
sentenced to imprisonment and can be improved through a community based supervised-process.
It can also be a more cost effective

Meaning of probation

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.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 convict’s capacity to readjust to the
normal society after the release and association with professional delinquents often has undesired
Law of probation in India
Section 562 of the Code if Criminal Procedure, 1898, was the earliest provision to have dealt

6
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).

(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

7
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

8
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 Bihar[ii], 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)

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:

9
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.[iii], 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)

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-

10
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.

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 Pradesh, 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

11
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

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

12
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 Punjab[v], 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
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.”

Conclusion
Crime is a major problem in our nation today. Concern over the steadily rising crime rate is
expressed by the majority of Americans. Probation officers are in a unique position to understand
the complexities of the crime problem, in that they interact with criminal offenders on a daily basis.
The findings of this research reflected a high degree of consistency among probation officers'
attitudes towards the causes of crime, the criminal offender and treatment programs. The only
significant differences were found when some items were related to the age and the race of
probation officers. The research findings also reflected that probation officers were in basic
agreement with other criminal justice employees and the general public on most of the important
crime issues. This study is the first step toward building a knowledge base about probation officers
and their views, and is meant to encourage further research in this field. For example, it would be
of great interest to repeat this study on a statewide scale. 76 One change this researcher
recommends in a future similar study is to examine probation officers' attitudes towards violent
and non-violent offenders. It is felt that the outcome of this research might have been different if
the researcher had sought to make this separation. Also, of interest would be to determine how the
use of high technology such as computers and more sophisticated communication networks will

13
change the attitudes of probation officers toward their job in the future. As indicated above, this
research is the first attempt to learn more about probation officers' feelings toward crime issues
and it is hoped that it will generate similar studies in the future. There is no reason why probation
officers should not attract the same kind of scholarly attention that has been directed toward other
professions.

REFERENCES

[i] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/pro_bat.htm.

[ii] (1972) 2 SCC 633.

[iii] 1989 Cr.L.J. 2063 (Guj).

[iv] 2006 Cri. L.J. 4068 (S.C.).

[v] (1976) 4 SCC 190.

14