Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition
Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition. When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is-convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is-convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called
upon during such period (not exceeding three years) as the Court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that the powers conferred by this section should be exercised, he shall record his opinion to that effect, and submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, forwarding the accused to, or taking bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the manner provided by sub-section (2).
(2) Where proceedings are submitted to a Magistrate of the first class as provided by sub-section (1), such Magistrate may thereupon pass such sentence or make such order as he might have passed or made if the case had originally been heard by him, and, if he thinks further inquiry or additional evidence on any point to be necessary, he may make such inquiry or take such evidence himself or direct such inquiry or evidence to be made or taken.
(3) In any case in which a person is convicted of theft, theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any offence under the Indian Penal Code(45 of 1860), punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous conviction is proved against him, the Court before which he is so convicted may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating
circumstances under which the offence was committed, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition.
(4) An order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.
(5) When an order has been made under this section in respect of any offender, the High Court or Court of Session may, on appeal when there is a right of appeal to such Court, or when exercising its powers of revision, set aside such order, and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law:
Provided that the High Court or Court of Session shall not under this sub-section inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the Court by which the offender was convicted.
(6) The provisions of sections 121, 124 and 373 shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of sureties offered in pursuance of the provisions of this section.
(7) The Court, before directing the release of an offender under sub-section (1), shall be satisfied that an offender or his surety (if any) has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place for which the Court acts or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named for the observance of the conditions.
(8) If the Court which convicted the offender, or a Court which could have dealt with the offender in respect of his original offence, is satisfied that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of his recognizance, it may issue a warrant for his apprehension.
(9) An offender, when apprehended on any such warrant, shall be brought forthwith before the Court issuing the warrant, and such Court may either remand him in custody until the case is heard or admit him to bail with a sufficient surety conditioned on his appearing for sentence and such Court may, after hearing the case, pass sentence.
(10) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders.
Section 360, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 401 Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Halappa vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Pre-existing family enmity is not a valid consideration for denying probation to first offenders. Trial courts must secure Probation Officer reports before sentencing first offenders under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Female offenders without criminal records, having regard to their age, character, and antecedents, should generally be extended the benefit of probation under Section 360 CrPC even when convicted of assault, provided circumstances warrant such compassionate sentencing.
On this section: Power to release accused on probation of good conduct; applied to direct release of female accused persons on personal bond for one year
-
Sunil Kumar vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Economic offences under the Essential Commodities Act, involving unauthorized sale of essential commodities to exploit public, cannot be granted relief under Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C. as such crimes are calculated, profit-motivated, and serious threats to social security. Additionally, once a court pronounces judgment and becomes functus officio under Section 362 Cr.P.C., it has no power to reconsider or modify judgment except for clerical errors. A party pursuing repeated petitions challenging the same orders after losing in multiple forums constitutes abuse of judicial process and should be dismissed with costs.
On this section: Probationary provision that allows for conditional discharge or release on probation in certain cases. Court rejected its application to this case noting that economic crimes are not eligible for such leniency.
-
State through S. P. , New Delhi vs Ratan Lal Arora
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a statute prescribes a minimum sentence of imprisonment and contains no provision for reduction on special reasons, the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked to grant probation benefits or reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum. This principle applies to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the statutory bar contained in Section 18 of the Probation Act (which refers to the repealed Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947) continues to apply to the re-enacted Act by operation of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The statutory object of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be diluted by indirectly reducing the minimum sentence through the application of probation provisions.
On this section: Section 360 allows courts to release offenders on probation. However, the Court held that this provision cannot be invoked for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to the statutory bar created by Section 18 of the Probation Act.
-
State of M. P vs Bablu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving assault or criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of women, sentencing must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense and calibrated to achieve the dual objectives of deterrence and proportionality. The mere fact that an accused is a first-time offender or has undergone prolonged legal proceedings does not justify reduction of a proportionate sentence to merely time already served, as such leniency would undermine public confidence in the justice system and create incentive for repetition of such crimes. Courts must balance individual circumstances with the paramount duty to protect society and reflect societal abhorrence of crimes against women.
On this section: Respondent argued entitlement to benefit of this section regarding probation; Court did not directly address this but implicitly rejected argument by restoring sentence
-
Hazara Singh vs Raj Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In determining appropriate sentence for offences under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), courts must apply the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment. Trial pendency and potential social enmity between parties cannot be valid grounds for reducing sentences, as such considerations would undermine the deterrent effect of criminal law, undermine public confidence in the justice system, and ignore society's collective cry for justice. The nature, gravity, and manner of commission of the offence, including the nature of weapons used, injuries inflicted, and factual circumstances, must be paramount considerations. High Court's appellate power to alter sentences must be exercised based on sound judicial principles and cannot be used to impose meager sentences based on irrelevant or untenable grounds.
On this section: Probation provisions for first offenders - Court noted that accused did not deserve benefit of these provisions as they were above 21 years and used dangerous weapons
-
Ashraf vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 361 CrPC mandates that trial courts must consider and apply the provisions of Section 360 CrPC or the beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 before imposing imprisonment on eligible offenders. If such provisions are not applied, the court must record special reasons for the same. Failure to do so constitutes illegality. First-time offenders with no criminal antecedents, particularly when significant time has elapsed since the incident, are entitled to the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and appellate courts have the authority to grant such benefits even if the trial court failed to consider them.
On this section: Provides for conditional discharge of first-time offenders; trial court failed to consider this provision despite appellants' eligibility
-
Lakshman Yadav& ORS. vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is a first offender, aged above 21 years, and has not previously been convicted, courts are mandatorily required under Section 360 CrPC to consider granting probation instead of imprisonment. If the court decides not to exercise this discretion, it must record detailed reasons as mandated by Section 361 CrPC. Failure to consider or apply Section 360 CrPC without recording reasons constitutes gross miscarriage of justice and violation of legislative mandate, warranting modification of sentence even when conviction is upheld. The court must balance the seriousness of the offence with the offender's background, age, and first-offender status.
On this section: Probation of First Offenders - Beneficial provision allowing courts to release first-time offenders on probation instead of imprisonment; trial court failed to apply
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… any case where the court could have dealt with an accused under Section 360 of the Code, and yet does not want to grant the benefit of the said provision then it shall record in its judgment specific reasons for not having done so. This has apparently not been done, inasmuch as the Court overlooked the provisions of Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, the mandatory duty cast on the Magistrate has not been performed. …" 21. However, Mr. Nagamuthu was prompt in submitting that the decision in Chandreshwar (supra) had no occasion to deal with the Probation Act and, therefore, it is not expressly held that …
-
… It is urged that the Legislature in its wisdom amended Section 16 of the PFA Act and provided minimum sentence for various offences. It is urged that Section 20AA was added in the Act and the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were excluded in its applicability with regard to the persons convicted under the PFA Act unless he was under 18 years of age. It is submitted that for some of the offences under the PFA Act, punishment of imprisonment for life has been provided. - 23. On the other hand, the …
-
… Ganpat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan the judgment of Supreme Court in the State of Karnataka Vs. Muddappa : (1999) 5 SCC 732 wherein Supreme Court held that there is no statutory bar for application of either Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to an offence u/S.304 Part II IPC where the maximum punishment is neither death nor imprisonment for life. Observing thus, Supreme Court did not interfere with the order of the High Court extending benefit of probation to …
Questions about Section 360
What have the courts held on Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Halappa vs State of Karnataka (13 Aug 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Power to release accused on probation of good conduct; applied to direct release of female accused persons on personal bond for one year. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 360, section 360 CRPC, section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Halappa vs State of Karnataka (13 Aug 2009).
What should I read with Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 121 (Power to reject sureties), section 124 (Security for unexpired period of bond), section 373 (Appeal from orders requiring security or refusal to accept orrejecting surety for keeping peace or good behaviour), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 6 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 401 (Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 360, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
- 145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to causebreach of peace735 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.