HALKE SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.1.1990 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1988 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the applicant and maintained his conviction under sections 380 and 457 I.P.C. and sentence of R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for one month under each count.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant, Shri N.P. Dubey, has contended that on the date of occurrence the applicant was below 21 years of age; his age was 20 years as is evident from the charge -sheet and the seizure memo (Ex. P -7). The trial Court while delivering the judgment also estimated the age of the applicant to be 20 years and in the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. also his aged was estimated to be 20 years. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on probation in view of his age and antecedents, as no previous conviction has been proved against him and he is a first offender. No reason has been assigned by the trial Court for ignoring the specific provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Shri Dubey also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mohammad Aziz v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 730) wherein the Apex Court has held that section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act lays down an injunction, as distinct from a discretion under section 3 or section 4, not to impose a sentence of imprisonment on a person, who is under twenty -one years of age and is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment other than that for life, unless (or reasons to be recorded by it, it is satisfied that it would not be desirable to deal with him under section 3 or under section 4. This inhibition on the power of the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment applies not only at the stage of trial Court but also at the stage of 'High Court or any other Court when the case comes before it on appeal or revision'. The Court has further observed that though the point relating to the applicability of section 6 was not raised before the learned Presidency Magistrate or the High Court, this Court is bound to take notice of the provisions of that section and give its benefit to the appellant, particularly since it is a section which is intended for the benefit of juvenile delinquents, reflecting the anxiety of the Legislature to protect them from contact or association with hardened criminals in jails and retrieve them from a life of crime and rehabilitate them as responsible and useful members of society.