Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Section 6: Restrictions on imprisonment of offenders under twenty-one years of age
(1) When any person under twenty-one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life), the court by which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it would not be desirable to deal with him under section 3 or section 4, and if the court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it shall record its reasons for doing so.
(2) For the purpose of satisfying itself whether it would not be desirable to deal under section 3 or section 4 with an offender referred to in sub-section (1), the court shall call for a report from the probation officer and consider the report, if any, and any other information available to it relating to the character and physical and mental condition of the offender.
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. 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 6
-
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…
- Pankaj Jain v. Union of India & Anr.
- Mohd. Hashim v. State of UP & Ors.
- State Through C.B.I., Anti Corruption Branch, Chandigarh v. Sanjiv Bhalla & Anr.
- Chand Gupta and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Sudesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand
- Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan
- Superintendent, Central Excise, Bangalore v. Bahubali
- Mohamad Aziz Mohamed Nasir v. State of Maharashtra
- Lala Ram v. Hari Ram
- Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab
- Ramji Missir and Another v. The State of Bihar