Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXVII: The Judgment
Section 361: Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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 offences and proceedings from before that date.
In plain words
Where a court could have released an accused on probation under section 360 or the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or dealt with a youthful offender under juvenile laws, but does not, it must record special reasons in its judgment.
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
Where in any case the Court could have dealt with,—
(a) an accused person under section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958); or
(b) a youthful offender under 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,
but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so.
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 361
-
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…
- Som Dutt & Ors. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
- State of Uttarakhand v. Darshan Singh
- State Through C.B.I., Anti Corruption Branch, Chandigarh v. Sanjiv Bhalla & Anr.
- Eliamma & Anr. v. St Ate of Karnat Aka
- State of M.P. v. Bablu Natt
- State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar & Ors.
- Manjappa v. State of Karnataka
- Gulzar v. State of M.P.
- Daljit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab Through Secretary Home Affairs