1

SEMINAR PAPER ON:

Reconstruction Of The Existing Law Of Admonition Under Code Of Criminal Procedure : Need Of The Hour

SUBJECT:

PROBATION AND PAROLE

SUBMITTED BY:

INDRALINA SEN

5TH YEAR B.A.LL.B (HONOURS), 9TH SEMESTER

ROLL NO: 18

UNIVERSITY ROLL NO: 403/LLBH/091235

REGISTRATION NO: 403-1221-0073-09

SUPERVISOR:

MS. SANGEETA CHATTERJEE

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,

JOGESH CHANDRA CHAUDHURI LAW COLLEGE

SUBMITTED TO:

JOGESH CHANDRA CHAUDHURI LAW COLLEGE

2

Reconstruction Of The Existing Law Of Admonition Under Code Of Criminal Procedure : Need Of The Hour

ABSTRACT:

The popular notion and belief is that substantive sentence of imprisonment would deter the criminal from committing the crime once again and the punishment would serve to check the criminal tendency of the offender and would set an example for others. But, it is not an acceptable theory of Penology in modern Criminal Justice System. Whereas Reformative Theory of Criminal Justice has gained worldwide support in recent years and all civilized nations and more particularly socialistic and democratic countries of the world have adopted various measures and statutory enactments to apply correctional method of punishment. Reform the criminal and not punish him is the consensus of the opinion of the modern Criminologists all over the world. The modern criminal jurisprudence has emphasized that no one is a born criminal. Man turns into a criminal by force of circumstances like abject poverty and other circumstantial and environmental conditions, and not by choice. Thus emphasis is not laid on deterrent punishment now, but what is important is to give the offender an opportunity to reform himself, so that he can lead a normal life.

Release of the offender on admonition is one kind of Reformative process – whereby the needs of the community are balanced with the best interests of the offender. The object of the Admonition is to prevent conversion of first time offenders into obdurate criminals of matured age, in case they are sentenced to undergo substantive imprisonment in jail. As per the provisions of S.360(3) of the new Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 it is stated that in any case in which a person is convicted of an offence of theft, theft in a dwelling house, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any other offence under the Indian Penal Code that is punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous conviction is proved against him, the Court before which it is found guilty is of the opinion, taking into consideration the age, character, antecedents, physical or mental conditions of the offender, the trivial nature of the offence and the extenuating circumstances of the offender that, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4 he should be released on admonition, the Court may do so.

The aim and objective of this paper is to prove that, Admonition is no doubt advantageous for the society, for which it has been implemented by the legislators, but there are many difficulties in the implementation of the scheme under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Probation Laws. Therefore, the study would like to provide some suggestions to improve the working of the admonition system. Finally, this paper would like to prove that Admonition would become an effective remedy only when there is a sincere attempt to implement it. It would be of great benefit for a country like India, where the jails are often overcrowded, with frequent human rights violations which would harden the human inside a person. Admonition is an affirmation of the human inside every being and it must be given the importance.

3

Reconstruction Of The Existing Law Of Admonition Under Code Of Criminal Procedure : Need Of The Hour

The twin duality for ever one

Chooses its home and mid the tumults of the senses.

He comes unseen into our darker parts,

And, curtained by the darkness, does his work,

A subtle and all knowing guest and guide,

Till they do feel the need and will to change.

----- Sri Aurobindo in “savitri”

INTRODUCTIONThe traditional criminal jurisprudence has undergone a radical change in modern times.

Reformative Theory of Criminal Justice has gained worldwide support in recent years and all

civilized nations and more particularly socialistic and democratic countries of the world have

adopted various measures and statutory enactments, to apply correctional method of

punishment. Reform the criminal and not punish him is the consensus of the opinion of the

modern Criminologists all over the world. The modern criminal jurisprudence has

emphasized that no one is a born criminal. Man turns into a criminal by force of

circumstances like abject poverty and other circumstantial and environmental conditions, and

not by choice. Thus, Reformative Theory of Punishment is more applicable to a civilized

society. Release the offender on admonition is one kind of Reformative process – whereby

the needs of the community are balanced with the best interests of the offender.Thus

mechanical application of the penal law becomes completely irrelevant. In the application of

criminal law the new approach to prevention of crime, procedure of criminal trials and

concept of punishments, or treatment of offenders seek to have made radical changes. The old

idea of punishment is the relic of the history of an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. But

4

the modern concept of punishment is not as such retributive or punitive but the process by

which the offender can be return to the normal life and rehabilitated in the society.

Admonition is the system of rehabilitative or treatment model in the administration of

criminal justice. The word admonition comes from the old French word “admonere” where

‘‘ad’’ means “to” and ‘’monere’’ means to “warn”. The scale of admonition varies from mild

warn to hard reprive. Though in India we got the word admonition in s.562 of the old Code of

Criminal Procedure,1898 that was subsequently repealed and after the repealing of the code

the new Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 comes into force of which S.360(3) corresponds to

s.562 of the old code. However, according to Webster’s International Dictionary, the meaning

of ‘Admonition’ is counsel or advice, a warning, gentle reproof, to warn or notify of a fault,

cautions, and directions, to reprove with mildness and to remind. But it is important to note

that the concept of admonition is found in S.3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, where

it is stated that when any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable

under section 379 i.e.(Punishment for theft) or section 380 i.e. (Theft in dwelling house, etc)

or section 381 i.e. (Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master) or section

404 i.e. (Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of

his death) or section 420 i.e. (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the

Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more

than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and

no previous conviction is proved against him and the court by which the person is found

guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature

of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then notwithstanding

anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of

sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under

section 4, release him after due admonition.

Mahatma Gandhi once said, "Hate the crime not the criminal". The object of admonition is to

prevent offenders 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 them, 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 trial in a criminal court would involve.

5

Therefore the reformative means must be adopted by keeping in mind the rights of the human

beings.

In this paper I would like to conduct an extensive study on the applicability of admonition

under the Code of Criminal Procedure and its impact in India. This paper primarily gives an

idea on admonition and then it proceeds with the sections and code under which it is

applicable and as to when and how an offender is able to get this privilege. Later in this paper

it has also been discussed the reason for which the Court has been granted such a

discretionary power. In short the object of this paper is to reform the offender, and to ensure

the society its security, and the security of its people by taking steps against the offender. It is

thus a correctional measure.

ADMONITION-------------CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESA brief idea on the concept of admonition has been gathered from the introduction itself. But

in order to get a clear idea on the concept of admonition a further information have been

given in this paper where it is stated that admonition is not a new concept because as it has

been stated earlier that admonition is derived from an old old French word “admonere” where

ad means “to” and monere means to “warn”.1

As per the provisions of S.562 the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, if in any case a

person is convicted of an offence of theft, theft in a dwelling house, dishonest

misappropriation, cheating or any other offence under the Indian Penal Code that is

punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years the convicted person being

convicted for the first time and the Court before which it is found guilty is of the opinion,

taking into consideration the age, character, antecedents, physical or mental conditions of the

offender, the trivial nature of the offence and the extenuating circumstances of the offender

that instead of sentencing him to imprisonment or releasing him on probation of good

conduct under section 4 he should be released on admonition as the Court may do so.2

1 Chakroborty N.K, Probation System in the Administration of Criminal Justice, Deep and Deep Publication, 1995,p.442 Sen kumar Prasanta, Penology, Old and New Tagore law lectures, Longmans, Green & Co., Ltd., 1943,p.44

6

Now as per the provisions of S.360(3) of the new Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 it is

stated that in any case in which a person is convicted of an offence of theft, theft in a

dwelling house, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any other offence under the Indian

Penal Code that is punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years

imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous conviction is proved

against him, the Court before which it is found guilty is of the opinion, taking into

consideration the age, character, antecedents, physical or mental conditions of the offender,

the trivial nature of the offence and the extenuating circumstances of the offender that instead

of sentencing him to imprisonment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under

section 4 he should be released on admonition the Court may do so.3

The only difference that lies between the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the new

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is that the old code provides for the release of the offender

only in case of commission of any offence under the Indian Penal Code whereas, new law

provides for release in case of any offence punishable with imprisonment up to a period of 2

years either under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law for the time being in force.

Now under S.3 of the Probation of offender’s Act 1958, it is stated that, when any person is

found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or

section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any

offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both,

under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against

him and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the

circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the

offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law

for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or

releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4 release him after due

admonition.4

In Dr. Jacob George V. State of Kerala,5 the appellant a homeopath performed operation of a

pregnant lady and the uterus of the lady got perforated because of employing scientific

gadgets by the appellant a homeopath, which shows that he had absolutely no training to

handle gadgets. The patient died. It was held that the High Court has rightly described the

exercise of the appellant in this regard as darning crude and criminal and an innocent life was

sacrificed at the altar of a quack. It was further held that keeping in view the nature of the 3 Id at p. 434 Misra S.N, Code of Criminal Procedure, Central law Publication, 2001, 10th Edition, p.8635 1994 Cri LJ 3851 (SC)

7

offence and character of the appellant; he doesnot deserve the benefit of probation. If a

homeopath takes to his head to operate a pregnant lady and perforate her uterus by trying to

abort, he does not deserve the benefit of probation. It would have been a different matter if a

trained surgeon while carrying out the operation with the consent of the lady would have

committed some mistake of judgment resulting in death of the patient.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF ADMONITIONAs stated earlier admonition is not a new concept. It has got its place even in S.562 of the old

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 where it has been stated that if in any case a person is

convicted of an offence of theft, theft in a dwelling house, dishonest misappropriation,

cheating or any other offence under the Indian Penal Code that is punishable with

imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years the convicted person being convicted for the

first time and the Court before which it is found guilty is of the opinion, taking into

consideration the age, character, antecedents, physical or mental conditions of the offender,

the trivial nature of the offence and the extenuating circumstances of the offender that instead

of sentencing him to imprisonment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under

section 4 he should be released on admonition the Court may do so. It is mentioned here that

“any other offence under the Indian Penal Code …….” implies as the specified offences

before the clause are all offences relating to property. The question is as to whether the other

offences should also necessarily be offences relating to property under the Indian Penal Code.

In regard to this the judiciary held that such narrow interpretation need not be given to the

clause and the clause stands independent. The offences that have been specified relate to

property but they have been specifically stated as those offences are punishable with

imprisonment for a period exceeding 2 years. Has the intention of the legislator been to

restrict the applicability of this provision only to offences relating to property then it would

have been easier for the legislator only to state offences under Chapter XVII of the Indian

Penal Code. Since it has not been so stated it therefore follows that any offence whether

relating to property or not that is punishable with imprisonment for a period of 2 years come

under the purview of section 562 of the old 1898 code.6 This can be well understood with the

help of the following case:

6 Supra note 2 at p.45

8

In A.K. Mallu v. Puranachandra Rao & Anr,7 The accused was convicted of the offence of wrongful

confinement under s. 342 I.P.C., and was released after due admonition under s. 562(1-A), Criminal

Procedure Code. On the question whether the latter section is concerned only with offences relating to

property and was therefore not applicable in the present case,

It was held that, the clause "any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with not more than

two years' imprisonment" in s. 562(1-A) Cr.P.C., stands by itself and indicates that all offences

punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment are capable of being dealt with under the

section. The words "any offence under the Indian Penal Code" cannot be read ejusdem generis with

the offences of theft etc. mentioned earlier in the section. Those offences had to be specifically

mentioned so as to be included in the section, because, they are offences- punishable with

imprisonment of more than two years. [310 G-H].

ADMONITION-------INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PERSPECTIVESAfter the need of admonition in the life of the people was felt the legislators took appropriate

steps and introduced this provision in India under Section 360(3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. But in order to

get a clear conception of the system of admonition we must also be aware of the legislations

that have been introduced in different countries relating to this concept.

In the Pakistan Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, under Section 562 (1A) the provisions of

the code lay down “Conviction and release with admonition. In any case in which a person is

convicted of theft, theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any offence

under the Pakistan Penal Code punishable with not more than two years imprisonment and no

previous conviction is proved against him, the Court before whom 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 offence was committed, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after

due admonition.”8

7 1967 SCR (2) 2098http://www.oecd.org/site/adboecdanti-corruptioninitiative/39849781.pdf visited on 26.12.2013

9

ADMONITION------- NATIONAL LEGAL ARENAIn India, the first legislative effort regarding admonition appears to be the enactment of

Section 562 in the old Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, where it was stated that if in any case

a person is convicted of an offence of theft, theft in a dwelling house, dishonest

misappropriation, cheating or any other offence under the Indian Penal Code that is

punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years the convicted person being

convicted for the first time and the Court before which it is found guilty is of the opinion,

taking into consideration the age, character, antecedents, physical or mental conditions of the

offender, the trivial nature of the offence and the extenuating circumstances of the offender

that instead of sentencing him to imprisonment or releasing him on probation of good

conduct under section 4 he should be released on admonition the Court may do so and then,

in the year 1973, Code was recast and freshly enacted as the new Criminal Procedure Code,

1973, this provision becomes as Section 360(3) was the law remained more or less the same

only with a slight change which runs as in any case in which a person is convicted of an

offence of theft, theft in a dwelling house, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any other

offence under the Indian Penal Code that is punishable with imprisonment for a period not

exceeding 2 years imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous

conviction is proved against him, the Court before which it is found guilty is of the opinion,

taking into consideration the age, character, antecedents, physical or mental conditions of the

offender, the trivial nature of the offence and the extenuating circumstances of the offender

that instead of sentencing him to imprisonment or releasing him on probation of good

conduct under section 4 he should be released on admonition the Court may do so. In 1958,

in pursuance of International Agreement, Indian Parliament enacted the comprehensive law –

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, here also we find the concept of admonition in Section 3 of

this Act. Before passing of this Act of 1958, the only Central Law on Probation was

contained in Section 562 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, which ceased to apply after the

passing of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Besides this, according to Article 21 of the Constitution of India “no person shall be deprived

of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”9 Therefore

every person has the right to live freely in the society with human dignity and prestige, so in

9 Shukla V.N, The Constitution of India, Eastern Book Company, Eleventh Edition, 2008, p.191

10

order not to deprive individuals from this fundamental right granted by the constitution to all

the people the Court have been granted this discretionary power to release the offenders on

admonition after considering his age, character, antecedents, physical or mental conditions of

the offender, the trivial nature of the offence and the extenuating circumstances of the

offender. This is done in order to abide by the Constitution of India.

ADMONITION UNDER THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUREAs seen earlier in this paper, the concept of admonition is found under both the provisions of

Section 562 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Section 360(3) of the new Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973. But in order to give a clear idea on admonition it is necessary to

highlight the provisions of S.3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 along with the

provisions laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure. As stated earlier the Code of

Criminal Procedure lays down that in any case in which a person is convicted of an offence

of theft, theft in a dwelling house, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any other offence

under the Indian Penal Code that is punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding

2 years imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous conviction is

proved against him, the Court before which it is found guilty is of the opinion, taking into

consideration the age, character, antecedents, physical or mental conditions of the offender,

the trivial nature of the offence and the extenuating circumstances of the offender that instead

of sentencing him to imprisonment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under

section 4 he should be released on admonition the Court may do so. The offences and the

circumstances under which a person may be released on conviction are the same in Section

360(3) of the new code and Section 562 of the old code.

For such release on admonition conviction is mandatory and thus the section makes it clear

that this provision cannot be used as an alternative to giving the accused a benefit of doubt.

The question that was often raised under the old code was that as to whether any offence that

360(3) of the new code clearly that any offence punishable with imprisonment up to a period

of 2 years or was only punishable with fine would come under the category of offences

punishable with imprisonment up to a period of 2 years. The Courts held in the affirmative

and under Section with fine only or with both shall come under the provisions related to

release on admonition. A question that often plagued the judiciary is as to whether the clause

11

“any other offence under the Indian Penal Code …….” implies as the specified offences

before the clause are all offences relating to property. The question is as to whether the other

offences should also necessarily be offences relating to property under the Indian Penal Code

in regard to this the judiciary held that such narrow interpretation need not be given to the

clause and the clause stands independent. The offences that have been specified relate to

property but they have been specifically stated as those offences are punishable with

imprisonment for a period exceeding 2 years. Has the intention of the legislator been to

restrict the applicability of this provision only to offences relating to property then it would

have been easier for the legislator only to state offences under Chapter XVII of the Indian

Penal Code. Since it has not been so stated it therefore follows that any offence whether

relating to property or not that is punishable with imprisonment for a period of 2 years come

under the purview of section 360(3) of the 1973 code corresponding to section 562 of the

1898 code. Again Section 360(4) clearly states that the power under subsection 3 can be

exercised under all courts. It has been held that by exercising its revisional power if the High

Court finds that the lower court did not comply with the provisions of section 361 while

convicting, and it did not pass any special reason for not passing an order under section

360(3) the High Court may without referring the matter to the lower court again decide the

matter under section 360(3). Sometime the question arises is as to whether the convict should

be given the benefit of section 360(3) or of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act,

1958. Here although the provisions of s.360 can be freely exercised yet when the

circumstances permit a person must be released under the provisions of the Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958.

ROLE OF JUDICIARY From the above analysis it can be found that this paper has clearly shown the power that is

given to the Courts to deal with the offenders. Not only under S.3 of the Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958 but also under S. 360(3) 0f the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under

both the provisions of the Act the Court has been given wide discretionary power to release

some offenders after due admonition. But there are some conditions upon which the

discretion of the Court is to be exercised. These conditions are discussed in details below---

1. That the offender must not have been previously convicted, i.e. the accused is a First

offender.

12

2. That the court while using the discretionary power of releasing an offender after due

admonition should regard to the circumstances of the case including;

i. The nature of the offence; and

ii. The character of the offender; and

iii. That the offence must be one of the following descriptions:

a. Theft (section 379 I.P.C.);

b. Theft in a dwelling house (section 380 I.P.C.);

c. Theft by clerk or servant etc. (section 381 I.P.C.);

d. Dishonest misappropriation of property (section 404 I.P.C.);

e. Cheating ( section 420 I.P.C.); or

f. Any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years , or

with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal code or any other law for the

time being in force.10

Now some relevant cases are as follows:

In Devki V. State of Haryana11, when Parvati a girl aged about 17 years was on her way

home at about sunset, the petitioner Smt. Devki swooped down and snatched her into a

taxicab. The weeping girl was medicated into unconsciousness, removed to Dhanbad and

later on to Haryana. The petitioner forced the victim to sexual submission with commercial

object. The petitioner was convicted for abduction and sentenced to three years rigorous

imprisonment. The Supreme Court refused to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders

Act to such anti- social specialist criminals. The benefit could not be extended to this

abominable culprit who has shown sufficient expertise in the art of abduction, seduction and

sale of girls to others who offer tempting price.

In the case of Rajbir V. State of Haryana, 12 four persons including the appellant were

convicted for offence under section 304, Part II and section 323 read with section 34 I.P.

Code by the sessions judge. The conviction of all except one Suraj Bhan under section 304,

part II was set aside by the High Court but the conviction under Section 323 was maintained.

The appeal of the present appellant is confirmed to the question of extending benefit of

Probation of Offenders Act to him. Learned counsel for the appellant passes the appeal on the

10 Supra note 1 at pp. 46, 4711 1979 Cri LJ 1309 (SC)12 1985 Cri LJ 1495 (SC)

13

ground that the appellant was in Government service and if the conviction and sentence are

maintained he would lose his service.

Both the parties to assault were close relations. It was held that there was no material on

record to indicate that the appellant had any previous conviction. In the absence of such

evidence we treat the appellant as First offender. He is entitled to be admitted to the benefit of

probation under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, taking into consideration

the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the character of the appellant.

Therefore the Supreme Court maintained his conviction but directed him to be released on

probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Act. It was further held that in the particular

facts of the case, the conviction should not affect his service.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EXISTING LAWS ON ADMONITIONAfter a thorough study of this paper one can critically analyze the advantages and the

disadvantages of having the system of admonition in India. Admonition no doubt is

advantageous for the society and for which it has been implemented by the legislators.

Therefore, the advantages of admonition are as follows:

1. The benefit of admonition is granted to all. The Court will consider the age, character,

antecedents, and nature of the offence of the offender. But there is no mention of any

age beyond which an offender cannot get covered under admonition.

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the release of an offender on

admonition not only in case of the commission of any offence under the Indian Penal

Code but also in case of offences punishable with imprisonment up to two years under

the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force.

3. Under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act the power is given to the

Court to release certain offenders after due admonition.

4. A provision is laid down under the code that any offender who is a first time offender

can be released by the court after due admonition.

5. The applicability of this provision is not restrictive.

6. The provisions relating to admonition is made to meet the ends of justice.

7. Admonition is reformatory in form and not punitive and hence widely accepted.

14

Inspite of the above advantages, the system of admonition was not proved to be a full

proof system because of its defects or deficiencies. Such deficiencies or disadvantages are

discussed below:

1. There is an impression and feeling among the people that Admonition is an easy let-

off of the wrongdoer and it is a form of leniency shown to the offender and not a

punishment. This opinion of the public mind is quite true when the offender is released

after admonition. In past where an offender was released on admonition by the courts

under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, it had definitely a statutory

impact on the offender so as to correct himself, but in this era of Modernization,

Globalization, growth of Industrialization and expansion of Cities and Metropolises

with the rapid expansion of population, it is very hard to say that release of an offender

after admonition would at all serve any useful purpose and achieve the object of law

for reformation of the offender. Generally, no agency outside the court maintains the

record as to how many persons are released after admonition under Section 3 of the

Act except there are some entries in the records of the Magistrate lying in a dusty

corner. No one has bothered to enquire, ascertain and bring it to the notice of the court

about the subsequent conduct and attitude of the offender, who was released after

admonition by the court. Actually, in real practice, admonition has absolutely no

impact nor it brings about the desired result on the life and activities of the offender.

2. Admonition has become a dead law in the statute book as it has outlived its services

with the changing pattern of the society with its new socio-economic dimensions. It is

accepted proposition that law must be in conformity with the changing social forces.

This Act was enacted near about 150 years back, may not be able to respond to the

needs of the present-day society. The offences, like theft and cheating are generally

committed by planning and not by sudden impulse. These are in the form of economic

offences and cannot be treated liberally in view of the fact that the offences of the theft

and cheating are on the increase and are against the interest of the protection of society

mainly because mere release with admonition does not strike such terror in the mind

of the offender that he will not commit it again.

3. In spite of the statutory provisions, as already mentioned earlier for awarding

compensation to the victim, who has suffered humiliation, indignity, loss of

reputation, loss and damage to his property and injury, both physical and mental, and

even loss of life sustained by the offender, the court in very rare occasion award

15

compensation to the victim. The offender is released without grant of any

compensation to the victim of the crime. In very rare cases, the State is considered to

be the victim or aggrieved party. If actually the State is aggrieved, it is the duty of the

State to punish the wrongdoer and also at the same time, to protect the victim by duly

compensating him for the loss and damage. In a Welfare State, it is the duty and

responsibility of the State to reform the criminal by applying reformative laws, like

Probation Laws, but at the same time, the necessity to adequately compensate the

victim of the crime cannot be overemphasized.

4. It is not only a matter of experience, but it is the human feeling and sentiment that the

aggrieved party, who has suffered loss and injury to his person and property, is never

satisfied with admonition of the accused by the court, but he is always concerned

about grant of compensation in some form or other. So, in the era of reformation of

criminal and new sentencing policy, the practice of releasing the offender after

admonition without grant of compensation to the victim would not serve the object of

law, and also it has no reformative impact on the offender as well as the society.

5. Actually, admonition is applicable to the first offenders and it is discretionary in

nature. The court has to consider “the circumstances of the case, including the nature

of the offence and the character of the offender”. But, most interesting provision of

this section is, it does not require the court to call for a report from the Probation

Officer. Though, according to this section, if “no previous conviction is proved against

him”, the court can release him under this section of the Code of Criminal Procedure

and also under the Probation of Offenders Act, after due admonition, but it is still not

provided in this section, how the court can satisfy itself about the character, including

previous conviction and other relevant factors of the offender and about the possibility

of his not belonging to a group, which has criminal tendency.

6. Unfortunately, admonition under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Probation of

Offenders Act does not make any provision to call for a report from the Probation

Officer and to consider the report while dealing with the offender – which is a serious

lacuna in the Act. Even if the object of Section 360(3) or S.3 appears to be

noteworthy, in absence of inbuilt safeguards, the lawbreakers can escape from

punishment by invoking to the provisions of the Act.

After discussing all the advantages and disadvantages, we should say that the disadvantages

should be removed to increase the advantages for the better protection of the people by the

law.

16

SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSIONSome Suggestions have been given below, which may be implemented at the legislative and

administrative level, which would make admonition more effective in India:

1. Nature of Admonition must be changed to suit the present social condition.

2. The provisions under the Probation of Offenders Act and the Code of Criminal

Procedure could be amended to be similar to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection

of Children) Act, where more detailed procedures are laid down, like for the setting

up of observation homes, report of the Probation Officer.

3. In the Code of Criminal Procedure there is no mention of Probation Officers, but it

must be made mandatory for offenders to be placed under the supervision of a

Probation Officer.

4. This system must be extended to rural courts, where there is general lack of social

agencies to undertake the task of rehabilitation of offenders. Rural delinquents may be

more responsive to this correctional method of treatment than the urban offenders

because of their relatively simple lifestyle. In developing admonition and aftercare

services, it should be ensured that women and children are specially assisted.

5. To make admonition more effective and responsive to the need of the community and

social demands, the execution of bond with conditions like payment of compensation

and execution of bond with surety plus the control and supervision of the Probation

Officers after release of the offender, should be made mandatory in the Act, which

would instil confidence in public mind regarding the efficacy of the law relating to

admonition.

6. General awareness campaigns such as Legal Aid and awareness programmes should

be organised among the common masses to spread the advantages of admonition.

7. The statutory defects should be removed by making amendments in the existing laws,

such as, to introduce calling of reports from the offenders released on admonition or

attendance before Court or officers in regular intervals.

8. It is necessary to bring a balance between admonition and reformation, like payment

of compensation out of the income of the offender to the victim’s family or release

with conditions to help the victim’s family.

Finally the study would also like to provide a conclusion which is essential to give a clear

concept of this entire paper. Therefore, the concluding paragraph put forward is as follows----

17

Conclusion---

After more than 60 years of our Independence, most of the people in our society are still

ignorant about the beneficial results of the admonition system, which are community-based

treatment for the offenders. So, any legislative enactment and its implementation by the

Government in this regard will not become effective and attain its goal, unless it is supported

by the public through active participation in the welfare agencies of the community.

The object of the criminal justice system is to reform the offender, and to ensure the society

its security, and the security of its people by taking steps against the offender. It is thus a

correctional measure. This purpose is not fulfilled only by incarceration; other alternative

measures like parole, admonition with fine and probation fulfil the purpose equally well.

The benefit of admonition can also 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. This can be achieved as

has been said previously, not only by legislative action but also by sincerity on the part of the

administration. In some parts of the country it is being implemented in the right spirit.

Thus while concluding it can be said that the concept of admonition would be effective only

where the judiciary and the administration work together, there must be a common

understanding between the Magistrate (or) Judge and the society. Admonition would be

effective only when there is a sincere attempt made to implement it. It would be of great

benefit for a country like India, where the jails are often overcrowded, with frequent human

rights violations which would harden the human inside a person. Admonition is an

affirmation of the human inside every being and it must be given the importance.

_________________________________________