Power of Court to require released offenders to pay compensation and costs (Section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958)

(a) Such compensation as the Court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence; and

(b) Such costs of the proceedings as the Court think reasonable.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

(2) The amount ordered to be paid under sub-section (1) may be recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of Sections 386 and 387 of the Code.

(3) A civil Court trying any suit, arising out of the same matter for which the offender is prosecuted, shall take into account any amount paid or recovered as compensation under sub-section (1) in awarding damages.

In Ram Kishan v. State of Rajasthan, it was held that the compensation awarded under Section 5(1)(a) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 could only be realized as per provisions of Sections 421 and 422 of Cr. P.C.

It cannot be realized as fine imposed in addition to sentence of imprisonment. Therefore imposition of simple imprisonment in default of payment of compensation so awarded was held as not permissible.

In Prabhu Ram v. State of Haryana, and in Laxman v. State of Rajasthan, it was held that the Court directing the release of an offender under Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act can make an order directing him to pay compensation, as it thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of offence.

When the benefit of probation is allowed under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, there is no provision of sustaining fine under the Act.