Judiciary Mcqs Of The Day: The Probation Of Offenders Act, 1958

Q1. Offender has failed to observe any of the conditions to the bond the court without prejudice to the continuance in force of the bond impose upon him a penalty not exceeding-
a)    Rs 50
b)    Rs 100
c)    Rs 200
d)    Rs 1,000

Answer – - a) Rs 50

Explanation-
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 446(3) states that if the offender fails to observe any of the conditions of the bond, the court may impose a penalty not exceeding Rs 50 without prejudice to the continuance in force of the bond. This penalty is intended as a deterrent to ensure compliance with the bond conditions.
This provision ensures that there is a consequence for non-compliance with bond conditions, but it also allows the court some discretion in enforcing the penalty.

• The penalty is designed as a deterrent to ensure that offenders comply with the conditions of their bonds. It is a modest amount intended to encourage adherence without imposing severe financial burdens.
• The imposition of this penalty does not affect the continuation of the bond itself. The bond remains in force, and the offender must continue to comply with its conditions.
• The maximum penalty of Rs 50 is specifically set by the CrPC and reflects the legislative intent to keep penalties for minor non-compliance issues within a controlled limit.

Q2. Court may in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than- 
a)    3 months
b)    6 months
c)    1 year
d)    2 years

Answer – c) 1 year

Explanation – 
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, deals with the release of offenders on probation of good conduct. It allows the court to pass a supervision order along with the probation order. The period of supervision should not be less than one year.

• Section 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
• The court, before making any order under this section, shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case and shall, unless it considers it unnecessary to do so, record in writing its reasons for not making any such order.
• The law mandates that the supervision period should be at least one year. This ensures that the probation officer has sufficient time to monitor the offender's behavior, provide guidance, and assist in their rehabilitation.
• The probation officer plays a crucial role in supervising the offender, ensuring compliance with the conditions set by the court, and helping the offender reintegrate into society.
• While the minimum period is one year, the court has the discretion to set a longer period if deemed necessary based on the circumstances of the case and the offender's background.

Therefore, the court, when passing a supervision order, must ensure that the offender remains under supervision for a period of not less than one year. 

Q3. A court after holding a trial, convicts and grants benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to an accused. Which of the following is orders is impermissible in law?
a)    Admonish the order  
b)    Direct the offender to pay compensation and cost
c)    Direct the offender to furnish bail and bonds to keep peace and good behavior for three years
d)    Direct under section 12 of the Act that the conviction shall not have an adverse effect on his service

Answer – d) Direct under section 12 of the Act that the conviction shall not have an adverse effect on his service

Explanation – 
Under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 12 states that a conviction should not disqualify the person from any office or employment under the government or diminish any of his or her rights and privileges. However, this section does not empower the court to direct or order that the conviction shall not have an adverse effect on the offender's service, it simply provides a statutory protection that automatically applies.

• Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
  A person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after release under section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.
• While Section 12 provides that the conviction shall not have an adverse effect on the offender's service, it is a statutory protection and not an order that the court needs to direct. The benefit is automatic, and no specific direction from the court is required.

Therefore, directing under Section 12 that the conviction shall not have an adverse effect on the offender's service is impermissible because it is not something that needs to be ordered; it is a provision that automatically applies by law

Q4. In which of the following case supreme court has held that the provisions in section 360 of CrPC are not excluded by the Probation of Offenders Act-
a)    Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra (2013)
b)    Azhar Ali v. State of West Bengal (2013)
c)    Lakhanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013)
d)    State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dharam Pal (2004)

Answer – c) Lakhanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013)

Explanation – 
In the case of Lakhanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013), the Supreme Court of clarified that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is a special law aimed at providing a rehabilitative approach to certain offenders. However, it does not exclude the applicability of Section 360 of the CrPC, which also deals with the release of offenders on probation. The Court noted that both laws coexist and that the provisions of Section 360 CrPC can be applied in cases where the Probation of Offenders Act is not specifically invoked.

• Section 360 of the CrPC provides for the release of offenders on probation or after due admonition in certain cases. It allows the court to consider releasing first-time offenders or those convicted of minor offenses on probation, taking into account their age, character, and the circumstances of the case.
• Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, also provides for the release of offenders on probation or after admonition, with a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration into society. It is considered a special law in this regard.

Q5. An employer requests a copy of an offender’s probation reports as a part of the background check for a job application. Can a court provide this application?
a)    Yes, the court can provide the report if it believed the job is crucial for offenders rehabilitation
b)    No, the court can not provide the report to the employer
c)    Yes, the court can provide the report if the offender’s consent and the employer’s promise to keep it confidential
d)    None of the above

Answer – b) No, the court cannot provide the report to the employer

Explanation - 
Under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, probation reports are confidential documents intended to assist the court in making informed decisions regarding the offender's rehabilitation and sentencing. The Act and related legal principles emphasize the protection of the offender's privacy and the confidentiality of such reports.

• •    Probation reports contain sensitive and personal information about the offender. Disclosing these reports to third parties, such as employers, could undermine the offender's rehabilitation and violate their privacy rights.
• •    The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, does not include any provision that allows the court to share probation reports with employers or other third parties. The purpose of these reports is to aid the judicial process, not to influence employment decisions.
• •    Disclosing probation reports to potential employers could hinder the offender's chances of reintegrating into society and finding employment, which is contrary to the rehabilitative aims of the Act.

Q6. In which of the following case supreme court held that the provisions of section 3 and section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are not mandatory?
a)    Phul Singh v State of Maharashtra (1980)
b)    Ram Prakash v State of Himachal Pradesh (1973)
c)    Ahmed v State of Rajasthan (1967)
d)    Arvid Mohan Singh v Mulya Kumar Biswas (1974)

Answer – b) Ram Prakash v State of Himachal Pradesh (1973)

Explanation – 
In Ram Prakash v State of Himachal Pradesh (1973), Supreme Court clarified that while Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act provide for the possibility of probation or release after admonition, these provisions are not obligatory. The court retains the discretion to decide whether to apply these sections based on the specifics of each case.

• Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, allows the court to release an offender after due admonition for certain minor offenses.
• Section 4 of the Act permits the court to release an offender on probation of good conduct, subject to certain conditions and supervision.
• The court's decision to apply these sections depends on various factors, including the nature and gravity of the offense, the offender's character, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court is not bound to grant probation or release after admonition in every eligible case.
• This discretion ensures that the court can make a balanced decision, considering both the need for justice and the opportunity for the offender's rehabilitation.

Therefore, Supreme Court's ruling in Ram Prakash v State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) underscores that the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, are not mandatory and are subject to judicial discretion.

Q7. While releasing the offenders after admonition under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which of the following act need not to be taken into consideration by the court?
a)    Number of previously registered cases against the accused  
b)    Nature of offence 
c)    Character of offender  
d)    Punishment provided for the offence 

Answer – a) Number of previously registered cases against the accused  

Explanation – 
When an offender is released after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the court considers various factors. However, the specific number of previously registered cases against the accused is not explicitly mentioned as a factor that must be considered. Instead, the court focuses on the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and the punishment provided for the offense.

• Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:"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, the court before which he is found guilty may, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition."

However, while the court may consider various aspects of the offender's past behavior and the context of the offense, the specific number of previously registered cases is not a mandatory consideration for release after admonition under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 

Q8. Under the protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, the Probation of offenders Act, 1958 does not apply to persons above the age of
a)    18 years
b)    16 years
c)    15 years
d)    14 years

Answer – d) 14 years

Explanation – 
The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, specifically deals with the abolition of untouchability and prohibits any form of discrimination on the basis of caste or religion. According to Section 12 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, do not apply to offenders who are above the age of 14 years. This means that only those offenders who are under the age of 14 can benefit from the Probation of Offenders Act in the context of offenses under the Protection of Civil Rights Act.

• Section 12 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: This section explicitly states that the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, do not extend to offenders above the age of 14 years who are found guilty of committing offenses under this Act. This provision ensures that offenders above this age threshold are subject to the prescribed penalties without the option for probation or other lenient measures available under the Probation of Offenders Act.

Q9. The Appellate Court or the High court in revision shall not inflict a ______   punishment then might have been inflicted by the court by which the offender was guilty.
a)    Lesser
b)    Greater 
c)    Different
d)    Equivalent 

Answer – b) Greater

Explanation – 
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Appellate court or the High Court in revision is not empowered to impose a greater punishment than what could have been imposed by the trial court that found the offender guilty. This principle ensures that the appellate or revisional court does not enhance the punishment beyond the limits prescribed by law for the original trial court.

• When an appellate court hears an appeal against the sentence passed by a lower court, it has the power to confirm, reduce, or even enhance the sentence. However, the enhancement of the sentence cannot exceed the maximum punishment that could have been imposed by the original trial court.
• Whereas, the High Court has the power to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order recorded or passed by the inferior court. However, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot impose a punishment greater than what the trial court could have imposed.

This principle ensures consistency and fairness in the judicial process, preventing higher courts from arbitrarily increasing the severity of punishment beyond statutory limits.

Q10. The amount order to be paid under section 5(1) may be recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of sections _______ and _______ of the CrPC.
a)    386 & 394
b)    386 & 387
c)    387 & 394
d)    386 & 390

Answer – b) 386 & 387

Explanation - 
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 5(1) provides that the amount ordered to be paid can be recovered as if it were a fine imposed by a sentence. The recovery of fines is detailed in Sections 386 and 387 of the CrPC.

• Section 386 of the CrPC deals with the method of recovery of a fine. It allows for the issuing of a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender.
• Section 387 of the CrPC provides that if the fine is not paid, the offender may be imprisoned in default of payment, for a term not exceeding one-fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offense.

Sections 386 and 387 outline the procedures for the recovery of fines, ensuring that there are enforceable means to collect amounts ordered to be paid under Section 5(1). These sections also ensure that the court has effective mechanisms to enforce the payment of fines and other monetary penalties, maintaining the efficacy and authority of judicial orders.