MOHD. SALIM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two revision petitioners have been convicted under section 379 read with section 34 -of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal in default. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that late in the evening on 10.3.1985, P.W. 1 went to the house of Deputy Personnel Manager of a Colliery on bicycle, kept the bicycle outside and went inside the house and when he came out at 7.30 p.m., the bicycle was found missing. Report was made to the police and in due course, the first revision petitioner was apprehended, and on the information furnished by him that the stolen bicycle was with the second revision petitioner, the latter was interrogated and the bicycle was seized from him. Prosecution relied upon the sale receipt for the bicycle in favour of P.W. 1. The trial Court upheld the prosecution case. Criminal appeal was dismissed in default.

(3.) THE revision petitioners were at the relevant time below 21 years of age. The trial Court adverted to this circumstance but without assigning any reason, declined to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act 1958. The trial Court also failed to call for a report from the Probation Officer as contemplated under section 6 of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court should have applied the provisions of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The facts of the case justify a direction to the revision petitioners to pay compensation to P.W. 1.