The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Probation of Offenders Act imposes restrictions on sentencing young offenders for certain offenses and emphasizes the mandatory nature of these provisions to prevent them from becoming hardened criminals.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. The present revision-petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 9-3-2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which his conviction and sentence under Section 380, I.P.C. recorded by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh, vide judgment and order dated 7-4-2003, has been set aside. However, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411, I.P.C. has been upheld and the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment awarded thereunder by the learned trial Court has been reduced to nine months by the learned appellate Court. The sentence of fine imposed under Section 411, I.P.C. has been upheld.

2. The petitioner-Rajive Sandhu was employed in M/s. K.B. Tools, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh, owned by Karnail Singh-complainant. The case against the petitioner was lodged on the basis of statement of the complainant-Karnail Singh, owner of the aforesaid company. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had stolen some tools from the factory premises. At the time of commission of the offence, the petitioner was 18 years and 9 months old.

3. Initially, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sections 380 and 411, I.P.C. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 200/- for the aforesaid offences. In default of payment of fine the petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 30 days and 15 days, respectively. In appeal, the learned appellate Court set aside the conviction of the petitioner under Section 380, I.P.C. and reduced his sentence of imprisonment under Section 411, I.P.C. to nine months. However, the sentence of fine for the commission of offence under Section 411, I.P.C. was upheld. Hence, this revision-petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not raise any argument on the conviction of the petitioner. However, he made submissions only qua sentence. In this regard, he submitted that at the time of the occurrence, the petitioner was below 19 years of age. And at the time of conviction by the trial Court, he was about 20 years of age. Therefore, being a first offender, he could not have been sentenced in view of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Court was bound to release him on probation because he was less than 21 years of age. Learned counsel submitted that there is a restriction imposed by the legislation under Section 6 of the Act that when any person under 21 years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life), the Court shall release him on probation. He further submitted that before the learned trial Court, a request was made for taking a lenient view while sentencing the petitioner because he is having five brothers and sisters and is son of a poor agriculturist, who needed financial help. It was also stated that the petitioner was the first offender. But the learned trial Court did not consider, the request. Before the learned appellate Court also a specific plea was taken and the matter was considered. It was observed by the learned appellate Court that the petitioner is not a previous convict; he is a poor man having five brothers, sisters and father in his family and that the stolen articles recovered from him are also not so valuable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of these observations and the fact that at the time of his conviction, the petitioner was less than 21 years of age, he was not released on probation. Regarding the age of the petitioner, his matriculation certificate has been annexed with this petition, in which his date of birth is recorded as 4-2-1983. In the judgment of the learned trial (Court) also, his age is recorded as 20 years on the date of his conviction.

5. While referring to Section 11 of the Act, learned c