admonition (final)
DESCRIPTION
Admonition in comparison with old and new ActTRANSCRIPT
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.
_________________________________________