1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2006, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.10, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate had convicted him for offences under Sections 16/54 of the Rajathan Excise Act and had sentenced him till rising of the court, and had imposed a fine of Rs. 200, and directed him to further undergo three days simple imprisonment in default thereof. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

2. Mr. Ramgopal Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, at the time of commission of offence, the petitioner happened to be fifteen years, eleven months and eighteen days old. Therefore, he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. Despite the fact that the petitioner happened to be below the age of twenty-one years, the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ('the Act', for short) have not been given to the petitioner. Secondly, according to Section 6 of the Act, in case the benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are not given, the court is required to record its reasons for denying such benefit. However, despite the fact that the petitioner happens to be under the age of twenty-one years, while convicting and sentencing him, the learned Magistrate has failed to give any reasons for denying the benefit of the Act. Thirdly, the learned Judge has failed to consider the fact that in case the conviction is recorded and the benefit of probation is denied, the petitioner's future life may be jeopardized. Lastly, the endeavor of the judiciary should be to reform an offender so that he returns to the society as a law abiding citizen, and as a contributory member of the society. However, in case the conviction continues to be recorded against the petitioner, despite his best efforts to educate himself and to seek a job, the conviction will continue to be an obstacle in his life. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed that the case should be remanded back to the appellate court who should be directed to consider the case for grant of benefit of Section 4 of the Act.

3. In all fairness, and in the opinion of this Court, rightly so, Mrs. Alka Bhatnagar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments.

5. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2006 clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has refused to grant the benefit of probation to the petitioner ostensibly on the ground that the amount of liquor recovered from him was on the higher side. However, the benefit of probation cannot be refused on the ground that the liquor recovered was on higher side. The Act as well as Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. are social beneficial pieces of legislation, which must be applied as liberally as possible. The ambit and scope of the Act and the provision of Cr.P.C., mentioned above, cannot be cribbed, cabined and confined in a highly mechanical manner or in a hyper-technical manner. Moreover, to do so would be to dilute the very purpose of these laws for which they were created. An endeavor has also to be made to ensure that an offender, that, too, a first time offender, is reformed rather than being pushed into a criminal way of life. Thus, the reasons given by the learned Magistrate for denying the benefit of the Act is highly misplaced.

6. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2010 clearly reveals that it is a hyper-technical judgment wherein the learned Judge has failed to consider the fact that the future of an offender has to be protected and promoted. Merely because the appeal was file