Judgment

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.:- This appeal is by Special Leave against the Judgment of the Patna High Court exercising its Revisional Jurisdiction by which the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Act No.20 of 1958) (hereinafter called the Act ) was denied to the Appeallant Qayum. The Appellant was convicted under sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The prosecution case was that on the Vijayadashmi day in 1964, Jagdish Kumar Sinha along with his friends had gone to Mahalla Pathar Ki Masjid to see the procession. He had in the pocket of his pant a purse containing Rs.56/- in currency notes. At about 1.30 a.m. when he got down from the Rickshaw and went to the pan shop to purchase pan and cigarette he discovered when he wanted to pay the price of the pan and cigarette that somebody had picked his pocket and his purse was gone. He raised a hue and cry and seeing that two boys were running, he and his friends chased them. They succeeded with the help of the members of the public in catching the Appellant who had immediately passed the money from the purse to his associate Shamim who however excaped. Both Shamim and the Appellant were convicted. It appears that before the Sub Divisional Magistrate a joint petiiton of the owner of the purse Jagdish Kumar Sinha and the Appellant for permission to compound the offence was filed under Sec. 345 (2) of the Inian Penal Code, but it is said no order seems to have been passed on it and the Appellant was convicted as aforesaid. As we have not been able to ascertain the truth or otherwise of this fact we do not express any view thereon. There is no doubt that at the time of the alleged occurrence the Appellant was said to be only 16 years of age and at the time of his conviction he would be about 18 years of age. Before the sentence was passed on him it was prayed that under sec. 6 of the Act he be released on probation and that no sentence should be passed against him. The Trial Court called for a Report from the Probation Officer in respect of both the Appellant and accused Shamim. The Probation Officer recommended that the appellant should be given the benefit under the Act which recommendation however was rejected for reasons recorded by it and he was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonmement as aforesaid. The reason given by the trial Court for not giving the benefit to the Appellant are as under:

"In spite of his recommendations I do not feel inclined to extend the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to accused Qayum. Apparently he is an associate of accused Shamim who is a hardened criminal and a person of doubtful character. Incidents of pick-pocketing are very rampant in this subdivision and it was just a stray chance that accused Qayum was caught in this case. Having regard to these facts and the nature of offence and the circumstances in which accused Qayum was caught, he does not deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Act".

2. The appeal filed against the conviction and sentence however was dismissed and his prayer for giving him the benefit under the Act was also rejected. Thereafter he filed a revision petition against his conviction and sentence in the High Court of Patna where, as appears from the judgment of that Court, the only point that was urged on the date when the revision came on for hearing the Appellant was below 20 years and the benefit of the provisions of the Act should have been given to him. The High Court after referring to the reason given by the Trial Court said that the Probation Officer had not made any recommendations for granting benefit under the Act to the other accused Shamim, in as much as he was hardened criminal and a habitual pick pocket and therefore rejected the Revision Petition as in its opinion the Trial Court was justified in not granting the benefit under the Act because of "the association of the petitioner with such a hardene