Heard both sides for final disposal of Criminal Revision Application.

2. The applicant has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner to call the report of probation officer under Section 4(1)(2) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

3. The applicant is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 354A of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”, for short). The prosecution case is that the accused was working as field officer at Apnalaya Sanstha. The said sanstha was conducting free coaching classes for students. Many children including victim used to attend classes. The applicant accused molested and outraged modesty of the victim girl. FIR was registered and, thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. The trial had commenced. The evidence of the witnesses was recorded. The statement of accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

3.1 On recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court recorded that, this is not a case of no evidence against accused and he cannot be acquitted in accordance with Section 232 of Cr.P.C. and, hence, accused was called upon to enter on his defence if he so desired. At this stage, the applicant preferred an application before the Court and sought directions to call for the report under the provisions of Probation of Offender's Act. The applicant contended that even in case under POCSO Act such report can be called.

4. Special Court while rejecting the application vide order dated 2nd April, 2018 has observed that the accused is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 354A of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. The minimum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section POCSO Act is imprisonment of three years. It is further observed that the provisions of the Probation of Offender's Act cannot be invoked in the present case as the accused is prosecuted under provision of POCSO Act. It was also observed that benefits under provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offender's Act can be given to the accused when it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct. It is for the Court to consider the circumstances of the case and the nature of offence as to when the benefit of the said provisions can be given to the accused. The Court is required to pass appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the nature of offence, its general effect on the society and the character of offender etc.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application. To determine the requirement of grant of the facility under the said provisions, it was mandatory for the trial Court to call for a report and without calling for such a report, the Court ought not to have rejected the application. The character of the accused or the need to exercise powers under the provisions of the Act can be looked into only after receipt of the report from the probation officer and it is premature to reject the application without calling for report. It is submitted that the Court has already formed its opinion that it is not a case of no evidence and the accused was called upon to enter upon his defence, if he so desires. The Court has committed error in rejecting application as calling report of Probation Officer was mandatory. It is further submitted that, the Court has committed serious error by refusing to call for report, since, without knowing socio-economic, psychological background, the Court could not come to the conclusion whether benefit of the said Act can be given or not. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and his family consisting of wife and children is dependent on him.

6. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisio