Judgment

DUA, J. :- This is an appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. But the special leave granted by this Court was limited to the question of the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 20 of 1958 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. According to the prosecution case, on December 20, 1968 at about 4 p.m. Smt. Sardaro, along with her mother-in-law Smt. Sarbati had gone to their gitwar for taking fuel. Smt. Surti, wife of Net Ram and mother of the appellant Daulat Ram, came out of her residential house and went to her gitwar through Smt. Sardaro s gitwar. Smt. Sardaro prohibited Surti to pass through the former s gitwar. Surti abused Sardaro. Thereupon Net Ram and his son Daulat Ram, appellant, armed with lathis rushed to their gitwar hurling abuses and raising lalkaras "marlo marlo". Surti caught hold of Sardaro. Net Ram gave a lathi blow on her head which hit her cheek below her left eye. Net Ram and Daulat Ram are then alleged to have caused further injuries to Sardaro. Net Ram and Daulat Ram were both convicted under Ss. 325/34 and 323/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and three months respectively. They were also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each under the first count. On appeal to the Punjab and Haryana High Court it was found that Net Ram had eight injuries on his person and Daulat Ram four. The conviction of both of them was upheld but the sentences of imprisonment under Ss. 325/34 were reduced. The amount of fine was also reduced to Rs. 100 each.

3. This Court declined to grant special leave to Net Ram but to Daulat Ram, as already observed, special leave was granted limited only to the extent of the applicability of the Act.

4. Now it is submitted that Daulat Ram was born on March 2, 1949. He was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judges, Gurgoan on February 20, 1970. The date of the occurrence was December 20, 1968. It is clear that on the date of his conviction the appellant was less than 21 years old. Section 3 of the Act deals with persons found guilty of offences punishable under Ss. 379 to 381, 404 and 420 I.P.C. or punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years and when no previous conviction is proved. Section 4 of the Act provides :

"4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct :

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour :

Provided that the Court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.

(2) Before making any order under sub-s. (1), the Court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.

(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the Court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may b