SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW

NAME : NANDHINEE. S

REG. NO. : H320082

COURSE : LL. B (HONS.)

YEAR : THIRD YEAR – SEMESTER V

SECTION : ‘B’

SUBJECT : H3S5503 – JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

TOPIC : ADMONITION

STUDENT’S SIGNATURE FACULTY SIGNATURE

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL.NO DESCRIPTION PAGE NO

1 INTRODUCTION 3

2 ADMONITION 4

3 CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR RELEASE 8

4 FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED 8

5 RELEASE FOR A GOOD CONDUCT 9

6 CASE LAWS 10

7 NON-APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 3 OF POO ACT 11

8 PERFORM COMMUNITY SERVICE 11

9 SENDING JUVENILE TO A SPECIAL HOME 12

10 ADMONITION V PROBATION 14

11 NINE STAGES OF CORRECTIONAL CYCLE 14

12 JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD 15

13 PROPER OBSERVATIONAL HOMES FOR JUVENILES 16

14 REHABILITATION OF JUVENILES IN INDIA 16

15 CONCLUSION 17

16 REFERENCES 17

1. INTRODUCTION
 The sentencing process in India towards children is very lenient. The role of the court is to
impart justice. Once the trial is over, the decision of the courts comes out in the form of punishment to
convict or if the court is satisfied that the accusation of a person fails then they acquit the person. The
treatment offered to children is in the form of admonition, probation, and sending a person to correction
home. Beyond this is fine, restitution and compensation are given as alternatives to sentences. In
sentencing process, lower degree of punishment is a rule and higher is exception. The court should see
the severity of the offence committed and give preference to the lower degree of punishment. If the
court observes that the punishment has two options of giving imprisonment and fine, the fine to be given
first preference.

When the nature of offence is grave and the demeanour of the offender demands more
punishment than fine, then the judge should think about the alternative punishment for the offence.
While awarding higher degree of punishment, it is duty of the court to give reasons for not awarding
lower degree of punishment. It is not only the duty of the court to give preference to lower punishment,
but it is the right of the accused as per fixed by law.

There is a presumption of not awarding more punishment than prescribed by law. The
punishment for the offender is decided based on the prescribed set of rules and not beyond that.
Whenever there is an alternative punishment then lower degree punishment to be awarded is a rule. The
nature of the offence should be taken as a measure for deciding punishment whether to be deterrent,
preventive, reformative or rehabilitative punishment.

It is very important to understand the antecedents of the offender before awarding a sentence. It
gives age, education, family details, health problems, addictions, and previous convictions of offenders.

There is a difference between punishment and treatment. Punishment means to give pain for the
offense committed. It is a lesson to the offender to deter him from commission of future crimes, the
punishments are given for a definite end or sometimes punishment works as an end in itself. In this
research, punishment is viewed as a treatment to the offenders.

The main ideology is to treat the accused not to punish them. But due to disagreement of people
this approach couldn’t be applied everywhere. In India offenders below the age of 18 years are governed
by J.J. Act, 2000, according to which a juvenile who has committed an offense can’t be sent to jail but if
found guilty is sent for observation under special homes.

2. ADMONITION
 It is an alternative sentence offered under Indian laws. The important duty of the court is to what
offences have been committed by the offender. The first-time offenders should be dealt with due care
and not in a harsh manner. Releasing a person on admonition means to release the offenders after the
advice to not do an act against it. It is a warning to the offender not to repeat the same act or indulge in
any act which is a legal wrong. It is purely the reformative punishment and gives the offender full
opportunity to expiate and be a good citizen and return to the society.

According to the J.J. (C and P) of the Children Act, 2000, the definition of juvenile mentions any
person to be below 18 years of age and has indulged in criminal activities. It is the duty of the J.J.B to
initiate an inquiry and find out the same. If the board finds out in enquiry and thinks fit, they can allow
the juvenile to go home after giving him advice or admonition. The parents or guardian too are given
counselling before releasing the juvenile as per Sec 15(1) of the Act. The POO Act 19584 also has the
provision of releasing the offender on admonition as per Sec 3 of the Act. This provision is applicable to
the offences under IPC for Sec 379, 380, 381, 402, 420 or any offence punishable with imprisonment for
not more than 2 yrs. or with fine or with both under IPC or under any other law on condition that no
previous conviction is proved against the offender.

Previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him for
admonition or probation on good conduct. There is a similar provision in the Cr. P.C, which says that if,
any person is convicted of theft, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any offence under the IPC,
punishable with not more than 2 yrs. 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, after
considering the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the
nature of the offence, instead of sentencing him to any punishment release him after giving admonition
as per Sec 360 (3) of Cr. P.C. There is provision of releasing the offender on admonition with
compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958.

Under this provision, when the court directs the release of an offender on admonition, if the court
thinks fit, may direct the offender to pay a sum of compensation as it may deem fit. The amount so
ordered may be recovered as a fine or in civil suit as compensation. This amount may be as per the
injury or loss caused to the other party.

Section 3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.

 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.

Explanation. —For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any
previous order made against him under this section or section 4.

Section 3 deals with the power of the courts to release offenders on admonition. The admonition
is nothing but reprimand. This Section empowers the courts to release the offenders where the offenders
are released without undergoing the penalty prescribed by the Indian Penal Code or any other relevant
law. However, an offender is eligible for release under this Section only if the following requisites are
observed:

The person is guilty under Section 379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section 404 or Section
420 of Indian Penal Code, or The person is guilty of any offence punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding 2 years or with fine, or with both under the Indian Penal Code or any other law and No
previous convictions are proved against such persons, and the nature of the offence and the character of
the offender is taken into consideration.

If a case abides with the above-mentioned requisites, then if the court deems fit, can avoid
sentencing such person with imprisonment or with probation under good conduct by releasing the
offender after giving a warning or advice to such person.

Section 15 in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000

15. Order that may be passed regarding juvenile. —

(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offence, then,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the
Board may, if it so thinks fit,—
 (a) allow the juvenile to go home after advice or admonition following appropriate
inquiry against and counselling to the parent or the guardian and the juvenile;

(b) direct the juvenile to participate in group counselling and similar activities;

(c) order the juvenile to perform community service;

(d) order the parent of the juvenile or the juvenile himself to pay a fine, if he is over
fourteen years of age and earns money;

(e) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the
care of any parent, guardian or other fit person, on such parent, guardian or other fit
person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require, for the
good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three
years;

(f) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the
care of any fit institution for the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for
any period not exceeding three years; 1[(g) make an order directing the juvenile to be
sent to a special home for a period of three years: Provided that the Board may, if it
is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of
the case, it is expedient so to do, for reasons to be recorded, reduce the period of stay
to such period as it thinks fit.]

(2) The Board shall obtain the social investigation report on juvenile either through a probation
officer or a recognised voluntary organisation or otherwise, and shall take into consideration the
findings of such report before passing an order.

(3) Where an order under clause (d), clause (e) or clause (f) of sub-section (1) is made, the Board
may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the juvenile and of the public, it is expedient so to do, in
addition make an order that the juvenile in conflict with law shall remain under the supervision of a
probation officer named in the order during such period, not exceeding three years as may be specified
therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due
supervision of the juvenile in conflict with law: Provided that if at any time afterwards it appears to the
Board on receiving a report from the probation officer or otherwise, that the juvenile in conflict with law
has not been of good behaviour during the period of supervision or that the fit institution under whose
care the juvenile was placed is no longer able or willing to ensure the good behaviour and well-being of
the juvenile it may, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, order the juvenile in conflict with law to be
sent to a special home.

(4) The Board shall while making a supervision order under sub-section (3), explain to the
juvenile and the parent, guardian or other fit person or fit institution, as the case may be, under whose
care the juvenile has been placed, the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one
copy of the supervision order to the juvenile, the parent, guardian or other fit person or fit institution, as
the case may be, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer.

In the case of Basikesan vs State of Orissa 1, a 20-year-old boy was found guilty of an offence
under Section 380 of IPC and had no previous conviction against him. The court held that this is a fit
case for the application of Section 3 of Probation of Offender Act and he was released after due
admonition. In another case, Ahmed vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 Raj 190, the court held that this
Section cannot be applied when a person indulged in an act which resulted in a major communal tension
in the society.

Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provides 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, 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. As per Explanation
under this Section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against
him under this Section or Section 4.

An order of release on probation comes into existence only after the accused is found guilty and
is convicted of the offence. Section 3 of the Act applies in case of offences of the following:

 Offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; or

1
AIR 1967 Ori 4
  An offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code; or
 An offence punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code; or
 An offence punishable under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code; or
 An offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code; or
 Any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or with fine, or with both
under the Indian Penal Code or any other law.

3. THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR THE RELEASE ON

PROBATION OF GOOD CONDUCT UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE
POO ACT ARE:
 No previous conviction is proved against the person who has been charged of having committed
an offence;
 The Court by which the person is found guilty is of the opinion that it is expedient to do so;
 The Court may form its opinion keeping in view the nature of the offence and character of the
offender.
4. THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR GRANTING BENEFIT
OF PROBATION:

The age, character, antecedents of the individual and other circumstances in which the offence
was committed. When the report given by the probation officer is a favourable one, probation should be
granted to the accused.

The Court has power to release the offender if the above conditions are fulfilled after due
admonition. Admonition means censure which, if not obeyed, may be followed by a severe penalty.

The power of granting probation may be exercised by the Court in spite of anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force. That is even tough, there are provisions in some other law
which are contrary by the powers of the Court under this Section, the provisions of this Section shall
prevail.

The order of release on probation of the offender cannot wash out the conviction of the accused
or the finding of the Court that he is guilty. The order of release on probation is merely in substitution of
the sentence to be imposed by the Court.
 This has been made permissible by the statute with a humanist point of view in order to reform
youthful offenders and to prevent them from becoming hardened criminals.

5. RELEASE FOR A GOOD CONDUCT ON PROBATION

The meaning of the probation is the behavioral supervision of the first-time offenders or young
offenders who had committed the first offense. The very procedure of this supervision is that the
offender who is under the supervision must not commit a further offense and he must report to the
probation officer regularly. The other meaning of the probation is that the supervision of the person
under the circumstances and his suitability for which he is being tasted. According to Sec 5 of the
J.J.Act, if a juvenile has committed an offence and if the JJB is satisfied on an enquiry and if the board
thinks fit then the juvenile has committed such an offence however it is necessary to release the offender
on the probation then the juvenile may be released on the probation even if anything contrary is
contained in any other law which is time being in force. The juvenile may be placed under the care of –

i. Any parent, guardian, or other fit person, on such parent and guardian or other fit person
by executing a bond with or without surety as a Board may require for the good
behaviour of the juvenile, for a period not exceeding three years.
ii. Fit institution for not exceeding three years.
Sec 4 of the POO Act 1958 and Section 360 of Cr. P.C, empower the court to release
certain types of offenders on probation of good conduct, if any person is not punishable
with death or imprisonment of life or sentence of more than seven years. The court by
which the person is found guilty has discretion to consider the circumstances of the case,
nature of the offence and the character of the offender and release the person on
probation of good conduct. This kind of punishment is applicable to a large extent to
children below 21 years of age and women and it is extended to all offences other than
death sentence and life imprisonment. The court may instead of sentencing the offender
at once, direct the offender to be released on bond with or without surety and with
direction to appear whenever called upon. In the meantime, the person is directed to keep
peace and good behaviour. Before releasing a person on bond with or without surety, the
court shall be satisfied that there is a fixed place of residence of the offender under the
jurisdiction of the court and the offender is likely to be staying there during the period of
bond. The court before making the order to release a person on probation of good
conduct, shall consider the report if there are any of the probation officer5. The court
may order in the interest of the offender or in the interest of the public may keep the
 offender under the supervision of the probation officer. The court, while making a
supervision order, directs the offender to enter into a bond, with or without surety, to
observe the conditions specified in the order. The court making the supervision order,
shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order. The above-mentioned
provisions are not applicable to the following offences:
• Conviction under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954
• Conviction under Defence of India rules 1962
• Conviction under Customs Act and Control Rules.
There is provision of releasing the offender on admonition with compensation under Sec
5 of the POO Act 1958. Under this provision, when the court directs the release of an
offender on admonition, if the court thinks fit, may direct the offender to pay a sum of
compensation as it may deem fit. The amount so ordered may be recovered as a fine or in
civil suit as compensation. This amount may be as per the injury or loss caused to the
other party.
6. CASE LAWS

In Bijender v. The State the offender was convicted under Sections 498-A and 306 of the
Indian Penal Code, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of offence and
the character of the offender, the Court released the offender on probation of good conduct for a period
of two years on his entering into a personal bond of ten thousand rupees with one surety of the like
amount, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, he
shall keep peace and, be of good behaviour.

In Basikesan v. State of Orissa, a youth of twenty years committed an offence punishable under
Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and was released under Section 3 of the Act as there was no
previous conviction.

In G.C. Patra v. State of Orissa, the Court released a 19 years offender who is convicted under
Sections 447 & 354 of I.P.C. under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of sending him
to a term of imprisonment.

In Sarangadhar Nayak and Others v. State of Orissa, the benefit of the Probation of
Offenders Act was granted in favour of the petitioner as the conviction under Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code is set aside.
 7. NON-APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 3 OF THE ACT.

In Devki v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court refused to extend the benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act to anti-social specialist criminal who has shown sufficient expertise in the art of
abduction, seduction and sale of girls to others who offer tempting price and sentenced to three years
rigorous imprisonment.

In Prema Devi v. State of U.P., the Court held that’ release of the offender on probation who
was keeping and managing brothel is not allowed as Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is not applicable
to offences under Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956.

In Prem Baliab v. State (Delhi Admn.), and in S.A. Roa v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the
Courts held that the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act cannot be given to offenders who commit
economic offences by profit motive under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

In Superintendent Central Excise v. Bahubali, the Supreme Court held that recourse to the
provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 cannot be had by the Court where a person is found
guilty of any offence specified in Rule 126-P(2)(ii) of the Defence of India Rules relating to gold.

In Anandan v. State, it was held that the offender charged and convicted under Section 392 read
with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code was not entitled to the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act
because he was already convicted for the offence under Sections 463 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code
on his pleading guilty.

In Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act should not normally be afforded in respect of the offences under Section 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code when it involves rash or negligent driving.

8. PERFORM COMMUNITY SERVICE

The J.J.B is empowered under Sec 15 of the J.J. Act, to give punishment to the juvenile in
conflict with law to perform community service. This is a reformative treatment which is given to the
juvenile to expiate to his deeds. Such types of punishments are not meant for juveniles but applicable to
any other criminal as per the offence committed by him. Sentence to clean Ambaji Temple for ten days,
a man has been made to clean and wash the Ambaji Temple in Banaskantha. Judicial Magistrate, Patel
has sentenced Mr. Shankarlal Joshi who was 53 years of age to clean and wash the temple floor for ten
days. The convict Mr. Joshi was happy with the order of the court and mentioned that he received an
opportunity to repent for the crime and offer service to the goddess.

9. SENDING JUVENILE TO A SPECIAL HOME

The J.J.B may make an order under Sec 15 of the J.J. Act to send the Juvenile in a Special
Home. This order is made when the juvenile is above seventeen and less than eighteen years of age. He
is sent to a special home for a minimum period of 2 yrs. In other cases, the juvenile is kept for a period
till he ceases to be juvenile. The Board may after considering the circumstances of the case and the
nature of the offence may reduce the period of stay of the juvenile in the special home, after recording
the reasons for the same. The above-mentioned punishments are the basis of the Reformative theory.
This is also called as Utilitarian Punishment Theory7. The theory has the word ‘Reformation’, which
means improvement, transformation, change, development etc. Reform means change and improvement
of a person by correcting the faults of the person, removing inconsistencies and abuses, and using
modern methods of correction of the offenders. Reformation is an act of reforming; it is an act or
process of reforming somebody especially for an improvement of behaviour.

The object of punishment is actually only rehabilitation8. The supporters of this try to prevent
crimes by different reformative programs. The current system in prison provides education and
treatments to remove their criminal tendencies. The skills developed in the prisoners during their period
of sentence help them to become good members of society. The reformatory is an institution or reform
school, meant to keep the young offenders. This is also meant to reform somebody who has committed
an offence. This theory expounds that a criminal can be reformed into a good citizen as a law abide by
giving him treatment during the imprisonment period. Under the theory of reformation, a criminal is
treated as a patient and a mechanism to treat offenders should be like a doctor. The criminal needs a
doctor and not jailor.

Under this theory punishment is not given to the criminal but he is given reformative treatment.
He should be reformed by giving him training to go back in society after his sentence is over. There are
two things combined in this theory:

The offender should be treated in a form by which he can be converted into a good citizen.

1. He should be trained for some work during the period of sentence, so that after
completion of that period he can re-establish himself in a society and he should be trained in
such a way that he should not commit crime in future.
 The aim of the reformatory theory as found in the poem of George Bernard Shaw, as quoted by
the Hon’ble SC in the Case of Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of A.P10. “That if a person has to be
punished retributively, he must be given injury. If a person is to be improved, he must be given the
opportunity to improve Because men cannot be improved by injury.”

The Modern Law Methods are based on reformation of the offender and seeks to correct the
criminals and transform them into good citizens. They should not be penalized for their wrong deeds. As
early as 1787, the Society of Friends named as Quakers in Pennsylvania started reform as a major
program in prisons. Prison came to be known as penitentiaries, because criminals become remorseful
when they are kept in prison and change their behaviour. However, it was until the late 19th century that
rehabilitation became a sole purpose under the Criminal punishment system in the U.S.A. The prisoners
integrate through the reformative programs in prisons, and it helps to avoid future criminal activities.
With a passage of time, the criminal justice system developed, and brought a change in the punishment
system. Individualized treatment started and the offenders were given a reformative mode of
punishment. As against the other theories of punishment, reformative theory seeks to bring a change in
the offender and rehabilitate him.

Thus, this kind of punishment is used as a method to reclaim the offender and not to torture him
or punish him. The reformative view of penology suggests that this punishment is the only one which
can give a better future prospect to the offender. However, it was observed that the hardened criminals
do not respond favourably to the reformative methods. The reformative punishment can be given as
follows:

1. Keeping a person in a mental institution, where he can get a psychological counselling

2. Keeping a person in drug rehabilitative centres, where he can be subjected to get rid of drug
habits and made aware about its ill effects.

3. Keeping a person under vocational training centres, where he will be taught about the skills of
productive methods for future employment.

The punishments differ according to the personality of the offender. The reformatory methods
are for the development and the benefit of the person, and it should be reached till the person at the right
time. This will help the offender to come back to the society as a normal person.

10. ADMONITION V. PROBATION.

 In re: Salem Govindappa Chetty, the Andhra Pradesh High Court released the accused on
probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, though the accused
was convicted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on a
charge of selling Mysorepak (sweet) containing non-permitted coaltar dye metanil yellow, and even
though the accused therein was the owner of the shop, while Jai Narain was the employee. The appellant
Jai Narain pitched his tent too high in praying for release after due admonition. He prayed for the relief
which even the Supreme Court was not empowered to grant, Section 3 being inapplicable. There is a
sharp distinction between release after due admonition under Section 3 and release, on bond, on
probation of good conduct under Section 4.

It is true that under Section 12 of the Act release under Section 3 or Section 4 is not a
disqualification attaching to a conviction of an offence. In case of release after due admonition, the
sword does not remain hanging on the accused. The fact that such an order may be set aside under
Section 11(4) is a different matter while in case of release on a bond on probation of good conduct the
sentence is merely suspended and the sword remains hanging on the accused till the expiry of the bond
and in the event of the accused failing to observe the conditions of the bond, he is liable to be dealt with
under Section 9, that is, he may be sentenced for the original offence or a penalty may be imposed upon
him.

11. NINE STAGES OF CORRECTIONAL CYCLE

The nine stages are as follows: -

1. Apprehension or referral of the offender to the juvenile court

2. Detention of the juvenile in the observation home

3. Probation officer’s social investigation into the juvenile’s past and the circumstances led to
the offence. 4. Examination by the Juvenile court/Juvenile Board/Child Welfare
Committee of the legal facts submitted by the prosecution.

5. Examination by the Board or committee, of the probation officer’s social investigation

report and other clinical reports available on the juvenile in respect of his deviant
behaviour.

6. Adjudication and disposition by the Board, or determination concerning need of treatment

by the Juvenile welfare committee.
 7. Treatment Institutional (Sending to the institution) or non-institutional (Probation with
supervision or without supervision) and placement to a fit person or foster parents.

8. Gradual attenuation of treatment, in probation it means decrease of supervision and in

Institutionalization, it means release on license.

9. Aftercare and follow up of the discharged offender. Termination of and discharge from
treatment in case of offenders successfully rehabilitated.

12. JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD

Whenever an inquiry satisfies the juvenile justice board that the offence committed by the child was
a petty offence then they are required to take the following measures

 Allow the child to return home after admonishing him or after properly advising him or her.

 Order to the child to perform community service, as this helps in instilling good values among
the children and such a measure is to be undertaken when the offence is of quite a graver nature.

 Get the child to participate in group counselling and similar types of activities as this greatly
helps in the rehabilitation of the child.

 The child is required to be released on probation if he was seen to exhibit good conduct.

 When the offence is not of a petty nature and quite grave, then the child should be sent to a
special home for a period not exceeding 3 years.

 The child or even his parents can be advised to pay fine, and this further acts as a deterrence.

13. PROPER OBSERVATIONAL HOMES AND FACILITIES FOR

JUVENILES

The constitutional guarantees to the juveniles are the same as those promised to the adults and
one of the important guarantees among them being a fair trial. However, it is an accepted notion that the
adults usually secure the bail faster when compared to that of juveniles. Merely because the juveniles
are not punished does not mean their constitutional rights are taken away from them.

It is rather a duty cast on the government to ensure the rehabilitation of such offenders happens.
In order to ensure this, governments are required to provide proper observational homes. The
observational homes come to act as transit points and hence it is important for them to offer vocational
training and education to the juveniles and further make sure there is a good atmosphere maintained in
the homes in order to benefit the transformation of the juveniles.

14. REHABILITATION OF JUVENILES IN INDIA

Taking into consideration the prevailing scenario it can be said that there many loopholes when
it comes to rehabilitation of juveniles in India. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act 2000, is indeed a very good law but at the same time, it lacks the demanded infrastructure. Further,
dragging one’s attention to the statistics released every year in India it can again be said that, the
juvenile boards in are less than the expected numbers in various districts of India and are also not up to
the mark in terms of their efficiency.

The prime essence of juvenile justice boards in India is to have a group of medical officers,
social activists who have been adequately trained, counsellors and psychiatrists. The presence of these
people would help the board in arriving at the right decision in terms of future actions to be taken with
regard to the juveniles committing crimes in India. But the sad reality again is that there is a dearth of
these experts and this, in turn, is resulting in not attaining the excepted results by the board. Now, it is
the work of each state government to implement all the requirements and ensure there is proper working
of the broad in each and every district and it is also leading to the attainment of the desired results.

The aspect of media is also to be taken into account. The attention of media being dragged to the
child as either a victim or an offender is very damaging to the child as the children are of tender age and
are not generally expected to have the required maturity. Hence, in order to be in line with this, the
juvenile justice act had issued the guidelines that, the child’s identity should not be disclosed anywhere
in the media and the photographs of the child are not be published anywhere. If there is an inquiry held
against a child under the JJ act, then there should be no report in the newspaper or magazine or any
news sheet which is allegedly disclosing the name, school or identity of the child. The act further allows
such a report to be made only if it is in the interest of the child.

15. CONCLUSION
 The role of judiciary is very crucial in determining the controversial questions which are not
redressed properly by the existing laws. The child abuse and juvenile delinquency are the two sides of
the same coin but the legislature has not yet realized this aspect and so the laws pertaining to its
prevention are not being implemented properly by the law enforcing agencies.

The SC as it is the Guardian for us, is very much alert and timely makes the pronouncements for
the betterment and healthy development of children. Now a day even the other courts are very much
sensible about the child issues and their good development and hence they are even giving harsh
punishments for the perpetrators of child abuse and when it is the time to deal with JCWL, our judiciary
is very much taking care of the young age and the developing mind of the juvenile before pronouncing a
step to be taken against a juvenile delinquent and the courts are giving more emphasis to give a
reformative way of punishment to the juvenile and directing the concerned agencies for their protection
in custody and rehabilitation after they are release from the custody.

The measures to be taken for the benefits of juveniles can be brought into reality only if there
exists a proper linkage between the state and various district governments. Additionally, there is also a
requirement for the child rights activities and groups to take up the initiatives of the transformation of
juvenile offenders and this would further boost the process and help in bringing the desired change on a
larger perspective. The increasing crime rated among the juveniles in the recent times and absence of
deterrence among them creates an alarming situation which is to be given full attention to the earliest.

16. REFERENCES
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1448957/
 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9482-the-law-related-to-juvenile-
justice-system-in-india-a-critical-analysis.html
 https://www.ijlmh.com/paper/juvenile-offenders-judicial-approach-and-theories/
 https://www.lawinsider.in/columns/first-time-offenders-and-juvenile-justice-in-
india