“A feature against which the Inspector-General vehemently protests is the appearance of 109 girls among them (offenders), there having been only 63 girl offenders in the previous year. He remarks that the increase is regrettable and fout of all proportion to the total number of youthful offenders as compared with the small ratio which females of more mature age bear to the total criminal population’. Apart from this, however, the total number of youthful offenders sent to jail is frightfully large. The great and very often irrevocable harm that results from the association of these youths with older criminals in jails is a well-known fact and it is with a view to render this evil as moderate as possible that Magistrates are empowered to release under section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure first offenders, those of youthful age, upon probation”.
JULY 3, 1913
The magistracy and criminal cases
IN SPITE OF THE REPEATED INSTRUCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT, THE Magistrates in this Presidency do not appear to attach as much importance to the sacredness attaching to the liberty of the subject as the enlightened conscience of modern times requires. Indiscriminate arrests, undue detention and the manufacture, unintended though, of hardened criminals by the process of sending youths to jails are some gross defects in the administration of criminal justice against which the public and the Government have very often had to protest; and yet, the improvement effected in these respects has been very imperceptible. The mere issue of orders from the Secretariat does not, if we are to judge from experience, result in that prompt compliance with them as Government expect and the public have a right, under the circumstances, to expect that the authorities would take effective steps to see that their behests are duly and properly attended to. One of the points on which stress is being laid year after year by Government is the disproportion between the number of persons received into jail, and those convicted. In the year 1912, 25,836 persons were received into jails as under-trials of whom 39.4 per cent were convicted and 52.8 per cent were acquitted or discharged. That more than one-half of the prisoners, assumed to be guilty by the authorities, should be pronounced after trial to be innocent, argues an amount of carelessness on the part of those that remand them into custody, that is indeed reprehensible. There has been absolutely no improvement in this respect, though Government have called on the Magistracy to exercise greater discretion in this matter. In 1907, the percentage of conviction was 33 and the percentage of acquittals and discharge 57.6, and in the subsequent three years the percentage has been 42 and 50.4, 40 and 52 and 38 and 55. Things appear to be worse off now than they were in 1908 or 1909, and the Government’s satisfaction that there was a reduction in the year under review, is therefore not of much value. We are glad that Government have, as they say, issued instructions again to the Magistracy ‘impressing on them the need for the exercise of great care in remanding accused persons to custody;’ but in previous years, the remarks conveyed in G.O.’s have been serverer, but the net result has been inappreciable. Last year, commenting on the existence of a similar state of affairs, Government suggested that arrests in many cases were not justified and called on District Magistrates to examine the records of one or more typical courts and then deal with all cases in which unjustifiable arrests were made. There is no evidence at all that this has been done. Again, during the last year, the detention of under-trial prisoners was for 37-33 days in the case of Sessions prisoners and 14.18 days in the case of persons charged before Magistrates. Last year the respective figures were 35.17 days and 14.56 days, and in the year previous 36.9 and 15.4. Here again there has been retrogression, and Government orders have been evidently ignored. In their review last year, the local Government had remarked that “there is still room for further improvement and the matter is one which requires the unremitting attention of the Magistracy.” This year, they say that “it should be possible to reduce this average in the case of persons charged before Magistrates and constant vigilance on the part of District Magistrates is necessary to curb any tendency to protract proceedings unduly.” We will take one more point to show how the Magistracy have not found it practicable to adhere to Government orders to the extent desirable. The number of youthful offenders admitted to jail under the age of 15 was 278, the number for 1909, 1910 and 1911 being 358, 363 and 291 respectively. There has certainly been some progress in this respect, but there is vast scope for improvement. A feature against which the Inspector-General vehemently protests is the appearance of 109 girls among them, there having been only 63 girl offenders in the previous year. He remarks that the increase is regrettable and “out of all proportion to the total number of youthful offenders as compared with the small ratio which females of more mature age bear to the total criminal population.” Apart from this however, the total number of youthful offenders sent to jail is frightfully large. The great and very often irrevocable harm that results from the association of these youths with older criminals in jails is a well known fact and it is with a view to render this evil as moderate as possible that Magistrates are empowered to release, under Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, first offenders, those of youthful age, upon probation. This section is not, as is shown by statistics, availed of to the extent desirable, and so long as this is the case, ‘the stopping of avoidable committal to prison of juveniles’ which Government say they have so much at heart, cannot be accomplished. Last year, District Magistrates were asked to scrutinise every case of juvenile imprisonment and call the Magistrates concerned to account if necessary, and Government have, for a series of years been urging on District Magistrates to take particular care in this matter. This does not appear to have been done at all. We wish Government devise a method by which they could have their specific instructions, especially in regard to such an important matter as the administration of criminal justice, faithfully and loyally carried out by their subordinates. Experience has, it seems to us, abundantly shown that District Magistrates apparently owing to pressure of other work do not devote their particular attention to these things. It is incumbent on the Government to see however, that their officers do not neglect this most important part of their work by calling for special returns at frequent intervals of time and performing the scrutinising work themselves. Otherwise, any admonition which may be administered in the annual review of the administration report is apt to become quite formal and ineffectual. It is satisfactory to note, however, the progress made in the treatment of adolescents. In the Tanjore adolescent jail, there were during the year 272 convicts all told, of whom 3 were under 15 years of age, 214 between the ages of 16 and 21 and 47 convicts aged between 21 to 25. It would appear that the classes at which regular instruction is given, are regularly attended and that some of the prisoners are anxious to obtain after their release, some appointments and could be independent.
The Inspector-General suggests the formation of aid societies in every district to receive these young men after their period of detention, in order to assist them in securing some useful occupation. The Government of Madras promise every assistance to such societies as may be started for this philanthropic purpose and state that they have at present under consideration an offer by the Salvation Army to establish a settlement for the reception of convicts, similar to the settlement opened in the Punjab.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I