The benefit of the First Offenders Act cannot be extended to offences punishable with life imprisonment. Probation is not a form of punishment and cannot be imposed along with a sentence of imprisonment. Article 20 of the Constitution of India does not apply to enhancement of sentence proceedings.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed on behalf of State of U. P. under section 377 of the Cr P. C. , against the judgment and order dated 29. 7. 1976 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Khurja whereby he has convicted the opposite party Deo Datta Sharma under section 409 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for three months. But the opposite party was not sentenced and instead, he was released under section 4 of the U. P. First Offender Act on a probation of good conduct for a year after furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 1500/- each within 10 days from the date of judgment. During this period, the accused was ordered to remain under the supervision of District Probation Officer. It was further ordered that in case the accused is found guilty of any offence then he can be called to undergo the above sentence.

( 2 ) THE brief fact of the prosecution story is that Deo Datta Sharma was posted as Kurk Amin by the order of the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr in the Co-operative Department and his area was Block Development Officer, Pahasu. He recovered a sum of Rs. 979. 22 ps. from different persons by receipt nos. 1/135 to 15/135 within the period from 19. 8. 1971 to 27. 10. 1971. He did not deposit the said amount and, therefore, explanation was called for. In reply to the explanation, the accused Deo Datta Sharma admitted the recovery of the above amount and prayed for 15 days time to deposit the same. But he failed to deposit the said amount. Thereupon, Mohan Lal Sharma, Incharge Kurk Amin sent written report to 5 0. Khurja on 10. 3. 1972 and a copy to S. P. Bulandshahr. A case was registered and after investigation, charge sheet (Ex. Ka33) was submitted against the accused.

( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In his statement u/s. 313-Cr. PC. , Deo Datta Sharma accused has admitted the different recoveries made by him and deposed that he fell ill after recovery of the amount and was not able to move and he deposited the whole of the amount when he recovered from illness. He has deposited the receipt of deposit of the said amount. One receipt is dated 28. 4. 1972 by which an amount of Rs. 690/- was deposited and another receipt was dated 15. 1. 1973 by which Rs. 289. 22 was deposited. At the time of defence, the accused has confessed the guilt and has prayed that his case be considered sympathetically because he has not misappropriated the amount with any bad intention and he is very poor man, suspended from the office having worst economic position.

( 4 ) THE prosecution has examined four witnesses. Mohan Lal Sharma, P W. 1 deposed that he was posted as in-charge Kurk Amins during the period from 1960 to August 1972 and his duty was to check the work of Co-operative Kurk Amins and to instruct these Amins about the instructions of the Department by calling a monthly meeting of Kurk Amins. According to him, he used to check the amount of each Kurk Amin and used to instruct the Amins, to deposit the amount within prescribed period. He has further stated that accused Deo Datta Sharma was working under him as Kurk Amin and he (the accused) never attended any meeting nor rendered his account for checking for which a notice dated 29. 11. 1971 was served on him. By this notice (Ex. Ka 1), the accused was asked to submit the account for checking. This was duly received by accused and receipt of the above notice by the accused is Ex. Ka 2. The reply of the accused is Ex. Ka 3 in which he has stated that he fell ill and failed to deposit the amount and now he will deposit the whole amount at once and account would be submitted for checking. Ex. Ka 4 is copy of another notice issued by Mohan Lal Sharma, P. W. 1 on 8. 12. 1971 calling for the explanation for not depositing the amount. Ex. Ka 5 is the reply of the accused in which he has requested for 15 days time to deposit the amount and has given the explanation for not depositing the amount as he fell ill. Mohan Lal S