DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted of an offence under Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act by Shri 1. C. Tewari, Metropolitan Magistrate vide his judgment dated 19th March, 1977 and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500 in default he was awarded simple imprisonment for two months. He preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence but the same was dismissed by Shri Joginder Nath Additional Sessions .Pudge, Delhi vide his judgment da,ted 17th September, 1977. So he came up in revision to this Court but the same was admitted by Yogeshwar Dayal J with regard to the sentence only.

(2.) . The allegation against the petitioner precisely is that on 21st November, 1974 when he was in the employment of Railways as a daily wager, he was found carrying away one old motor-tyre at about 4.30 A.M. by Assistant Sub-Inspector Tirath Ram of Railway Protection Force near the Platform in front of Lost Property Office at Delhi Kishan Ganj, Railway Station. The petitioner was apprehended by him on suspicion and on investigation it transpired that the said tyre had been stolen from a heap of old tyres stacked in front of the Lost Property Office after having been unloaded from a wagon which had arrived from Nagpur. It bore lot No. 675E[74 and it was further found that one tyre at serial No. 7 of the said lot was missing. So he was charged and convicted of the said offence.

(3.) . The submission made by the counsel for petitioner concisefy is that he being first offender and being below 21 years of age on the date of commission of the said offence should have been released on probation of good conduct as envisaged in Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He has convassed rather vehmently that instant was the fittest case where release of the petitioner on probation of good conduct with the evowed object of reforming and rehabilitating him should have been considered expedient by the Courts below but the learned Magistrate did not exercise the discretion vasting him in this behalf even though he noticed the tender age of the petitioner and he did not award the sentence of imprisonment on that account.