Ensure first-time offenders not sent to jail for minor crime: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 5

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act have to be liberally construed to serve the underlying purpose of reformation, societal benefit and to keep the first-time and minor offenders away from the detrimental environment of jails.

Aim to Keep them away from hardened criminals

The purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act and related Sections 360 and 361 of the CrPC is to ensure that first-time offenders are not incarcerated for minor offences, as this could expose them to the harmful influence of hardened and habitual criminals in jail, posing a grave risk to their outlook on life. Their stay in jail under such circumstances might lead them towards a life of crime, rather than reform. This would cause more harm than good and could be detrimental to the larger interests of society as a whole.

“A court has the ample power to release the first offender of minor offences on probation, keeping into focus the nature and manner of the crime, age of the offender, other antecedents and attending circumstances of the offence instead of committing him to jail,” Justice Manisha Batra asserted.

The Bench ruled that the purpose of the Act and related Sections 360 and 361 of the CrPC was to ensure that first-time offenders were not incarcerated for minor offences, as this could expose them to the harmful influence of hardened and habitual criminals in jail, posing a grave risk to their outlook on life. Their stay in jail under such circumstances might lead them towards a life of crime, rather than reform. This would cause more harm than good and could be detrimental to the larger interests of society as a whole.

The rationale likely explained why Section 6 of the Probation Act included a mandatory injunction against imposing imprisonment sentences. The mandate aimed to prevent young delinquents and first-time offenders from associating or coming in close contact with hardened criminals and their negative influence. As such, the beneficial provisions were required to be liberally construed.

Justice Batra was hearing a petition filed by a complainant in a case after the accused were ordered to be released on probation. The Bench observed the legislature’s sole intention in passing probation laws was to give a person of “a particular type” a chance of reformation, which would be unavailable if he was sent to prison.

The “types of persons” envisioned by the legislature under the probation law were not hardened or dangerous criminals, but rather individuals who committed offences due to momentary weaknesses of character or tempting situations.

The courts by placing the offender on probation spared them from the stigma of jail life and the contaminating influence of hardened prison inmates. Additionally, probation served secondary, yet significant purpose, of alleviating overcrowding in jails by keeping many offenders out of prison.

Dismissing the plea against the order on releasing the accused on probation, Justice Batra asserted: “This court is of the considered opinion that taking into consideration the agony and trauma, which the accused persons have undergone during protracted trial, appeal, revision, their antecedents, nature of offence, totality of other facts and circumstances emanating from the record, no useful purpose would be served by sending them again to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence”.