JUDGMENT

Gupta, J. - We have before us two criminal revisions Nos. 1614 of 1963 and 593 of 1964.

2. In Cr. Rev. No. 1614 of 1963 the sole opposite party Jagdish Prasad was convicted of the offences punishable Under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC by the I Asstt. Sessions Judge, Aligarh. The learned Judge ordered that Jagdish Prasad be put on probation for a period of two years u/s 4 of the UP First Offenders' Probation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The directions as to what Jagdish Prasad was required to do to avail himself of the benefit u/s 4 of the Act need not be detailed herein. The complainant Bhoodeo filed an application in revision in this Court raising the contention, inter alia, that Jagdish Prasad was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act. The revision came up for hearing by brother Khare who referred to certain authorities of this Court and having found a divergence of opinion on the question, directed that the papers be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to decide the aforesaid question. The revision then came up before a Division Bench which, by order dated 7-12-1965, directed the record to be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench. By the aforesaid order it was also directed that this revision be connected with the other revision which is before us, viz., Cr. Rev. No. 593 of 1964.

3. Cr. Rev. No. 593 of 1964 arises out of a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Etah, thereby the sole Respondent Bhumiraj, aged 12 years, was, on a plea of guilty, convicted u/s 376 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge gave to Bhumiraj the benefit of Section 4 of the Act with certain directions. The State of UP thereupon filed this revision which was referred by brother D.S. Mathur to a larger Bench which, for reasons similar to those in Cr. Rev. No. 1614 of 1963, directed the papers to be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the constitution of a still larger Bench. This is how Cr. Rev. No. 593 of 1964 is also before us.

4. The common question that has arisen for consideration by us is as to whether Respondents Jagdish Prasad and Bhumiraj are entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Act. Having heard learned Counsels and having considered the relevant provisions of the Act and the cases cited at the Bar, we are of the opinion that the answer to the question must be in the negative

5. Section 4 of the Act need not be reproduced in its entirety. For the purposes of deciding the controversy before us it is sufficient to reproduce Clause (1) of Section 4, excluding the provisos, which runs as follows:

When any person is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the court before which he is convicted regard being had to the age, character, antecedent or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, 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.

The only question is as to what was intended by the Legislature by the use of the expression "when any person is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life".

6. There are several reported decisions bearing on the questions, but before referring to the decisions of this Court a brief reference may be made to certain decisions of the other High Courts.

In the case of AIR 1932 130 (Nagpur) decided by the Nagpur High Court it was held that the provision contained in Section 497 of the Code of Crimi