Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXVII: The Judgment
Section 360: Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
Instead of sentencing at once, a court can release a first offender on probation of good conduct, on a bond to keep the peace and appear for sentence when called within up to three years. This applies to a person aged twenty-one years or more convicted of an offence punishable with fine or up to seven years, or a person under twenty-one years of age or a woman convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
- The court considers age, character, antecedents and the circumstances of the offence, and must be satisfied the offender or surety has a fixed home or regular occupation.
- For theft, dishonest misappropriation, cheating, Indian Penal Code offences punishable with up to two years, or offences with fine only, a first offender can be released after due admonition.
- A second class Magistrate not specially empowered must refer such cases to a first class Magistrate.
- If conditions are broken, the offender can be arrested and sentenced. This does not affect the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or juvenile laws.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) When any person not under 1. Ins. by Act 5 of 2009, s. 28 (w.e.f. 31-12-2009). 2. Ins. by Act 13 of 2013, s. 23 (w.e.f. 3-2-2013). 3. Subs. by Act 22 of 2018, s. 18, for —under section 326A or section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)‖ (w.e.f. 21-4-2018). 4. Subs. by s. 19, ibid., for —376A, 376B, 376C, 376D‖ (w.e.f. 21-4-2018). 5. Subs. by Act 25 of 2005, s. 30, for —one hundred rupees‖ (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).
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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 360
-
Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others
Whether, an accused/convict who has completed his “life imprisonment for a fixed term” such as twenty years of actual sentence without remission, as in the instant case, is entitled to be released from prison on…
-
Nagarajan & Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Whether the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be granted to the appellants; if the answer to the aforesaid issue is in the negative, can the reduced sentence that the Food Safety and…
-
Chellammal and Another v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Whether the appellants could be granted the benefit of probation either u/s.360(1) of CrPC or u/s.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; whether the High Court was justified in not extending the benefit of probation…
-
Sanjay Colaro v. State of Karnataka
Matter pertains to the extension of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant for causing a road accident, resulting in the death of the pedestrian.
-
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(i) Whether the High Court was right in exercising its revisional jurisdiction for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting the second application preferred by the respondent no.2 u/s.319 of…
-
Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Need for a comprehensive sentencing policy. Trial against the accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was conducted by the judicial officer in utmost haste and the accused was denied due…
-
Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Others
Writ petition filed u/Art. 32 by one of the victims challenging the order of State of Gujarat granting remission and early release of 11 convicts held guilty in Bilkis Bano matter, if maintainable; writ petitions filed…
- Gyarsi v. The State NCT of Delhi
- Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab
- Manoj Pratap Singh v. The State of Rajasthan
- State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal and Another
- Som Dutt & Ors. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
- Lakhvir Singh Etc v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
- The State Bank of India & Others v. P. Soupramaniane
- Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra
- Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.
- Mohd. Hashim v. State of UP & Ors.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bablu
- State Through C.B.I., Anti Corruption Branch, Chandigarh v. Sanjiv Bhalla & Anr.
- Nanak Ram v. State of Rajasthan
- Birju v. State of M.P.
- State of M.P. v. Mohan & Others
- Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar and Ors.
- Sanjay Dutt (A-117) v. The State of Maharashtra, Through CBI (Stf), Bombay
- Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana
- Sarju@ Ramu v. State of U.P.
- Eliamma & Anr. v. St Ate of Karnat Aka
- State of M.P. v. Bablu Natt
- Nasirudoin Khan and Ors. v. State of Bihar
- State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar & Ors.
- Ramesh Dass v. Raghu Nath and Ors.
- State of M.P. and Ors. v. Madhukar Rao
- Mohd. Yaseen v. State of U.P.
- Gulzar v. State of M.P.
- The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, Tamilnadu v. A. Parthiban
- Daljit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab Through Secretary Home Affairs
- Chani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- State Through S.P., New Delhi v. Ratan Lal Arora
- The Assistant Commissioner, Assessment-Ii, Bangalore and Ors. v. M/S. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. and Ors.
- Moti Lal v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
- Rakesh Singha Etc. Etc. v. State of Himachal Pradesh Etc. Etc.
- Smt. Gian Kaur Etc. Etc. v. The State of Punjab Etc. Etc.
- Pashora Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab
- N. M. Parthasarathy v. State by S. P. E.
- Hari Kishan & Anr. v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors.
- Rajinder Pershad v. State of Haryana
- Ved Prakash v. State of Haryana
- Satto & Others v. State of U.P.