ORDER :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 02.09.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur in Original Criminal Appeal No.14/99 (133/98), whereby while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 454 & 380 IPC, as recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur in the judgment dated 11.11.1998 passed in Criminal Original Case No.131/84, the sentence on each count has been reduced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-on each count, default of payment of which to further undergo seven days simple imprisonment.

2.1 The prayer made in the present petition reads as under:

“Under such circumstances, it is prayed that this revision may kindly be accepted and the petitioner be granted benefit of Provision of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act as well as a direction be given that the petitioner’s service shall not be affected by virtue of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.”

3. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1984 and the present appeal has been pending since 1999.

4. The offence under Section 380 IPC and Section 454 IPC, are punishable, as per the Indian Penal Code, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine, and with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine, respectively. It is further provided in Section 454 IPC that if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to ten years.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that on the date of commission of the alleged offence, the accused-petitioner was even below 18 years of age, and that he does not have any previous criminal antecedents to his discredit.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner further submits that the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide the order dated 10.09.1999, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition (Suspension of Sentence) No. 158/99, and thus, he is on bail.

7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-petitioner may be granted benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Learned counsel also referred to Section 6 of the Act.

Sections 4 & 6 of the Act read as under:

“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 an