JUDGMENT :- Special leave granted.

2. We heard Mr. A. T. M. Sampath, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. V. Rangam, learned standing counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu. A question of very limited importance has been raised by Mr. Sampath in this appeal. He contends that the petitioner should have been given the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Act for short).

3. Section 6 of the Act provides that when any person under twenty one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not imprisonment for life) the Court by which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and character of the offender, it would not be desirable to deal with him under Section 3 or 4, and if the Court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it shall record its reasons for doing so. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 provides that when the Court wants to deal with the case under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act, the Court shall call for a report from the Probation Officer and consider the report as also any other information available to it relevant to the character and physical and mental condition of the person concerned.

4. Turning to the facts of this case, appellant Masarullah was convicted for offences under Sections 452 and 397, I. P. C. and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 5 years and 7 years respectively. His appeal to the High Court failed. Hence this appeal by Special Leave.

5. The only question which we have to address ourselves is whether the accused should be given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The High Court first examined the question whether in the facts of this case Sections 6 and 4 would be attracted. After noticing that the correct charge against the appellant would be for an offence under Section 392 read with Sections 397 and 452 I. P. C. observed that neither of the offences is punishable with imprisonment for life. The High Court then proceeded to consider that even though case of the appellant would fall under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, declined to give him benefit for the reasons which may be extracted in the words of the High Court :

"This is a case where the offender has not succumbed to any sudden temptation or uncontrollable impulse. This is a case where it was preplanned. He gets a cycle outside the premises, enters the building with two others, brandishes a knife, makes the victim part with the jewels including her thali mani, and bolts the victim and her children inside the room. The commission of the offence implies previous preparation. Because he was not able to unlock the cycle which he wanted to ride he was not able to flee from the scene quickly and that facilitated in his apprehension. The offence was an act of daring and is reprehensible in nature."

So saying the High Court rejected the request for giving benefit of the provisions of the Act. The question is whether the approach of the High Court is correct in law.

6. In case of an offender under the age of twenty one years on the date of commission of the offence, the Court is excepted ordinarily to give benefit of the provisions of the Act and there is an embargo on the power of the Court to award sentence unless the Court considers otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case including nature of the offence and the character of the offender, and reasons for awarding sentence have to be recorded. Considerations relevant to the adjudication of this aspect are, circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and character of the offender. It is, therefore, necessary to keep in view the aforementioned three aspects while deciding whether the appellant should be granted the benefit of the provisions of the Act.

7. We have on record the report made by the Probation Officer V. Division Madras. It is a deta