The crucial date for reckoning the age mentioned in Section 6(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is the date when the trial court has to deal with the accused for the purpose of punishment.

S.K. Chawla, J.

Counsel name removed from here

1. Accused Balkishan was convicted of the offences under Sections 454 and 380, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for 6 months under each count, both the sentences running concurrently, by judgment dated `22-1-1982 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ganj Basoda. On appeal being carried by him, the aforesaid convictions and sentences were affirmed by judgment dated 29-7-1989 by A.S.J., Ganj Basoda. Now the accused has come in revision to this Court.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 10-7-1978 during day time house breaking was committed in the house of one Premsingh (PW 4) when none was present in the house. Some silver ornaments kept in a box in the house were stolen in that incident. On 13-7-1978, applicant Balkishan got two pairs of silver Banke and one pair of silver Tankar recovered on his information and at his instance from a room of his house in which he had stored straw. On 17-7-1978 he got one silver Kardhani recovered from the shop of a jeweller named Chandrakumar (PW 11) to whom he had sold it for Rs. 460/-, telling his name to be Dhansingh. The transaction of sale' was found to be entered in the register of the shop-keeper. All the ornaments seized were identified to be property stolen in the above said theft. On these facts, the applicant was convicted and sentenced of the offences of house-breaking and theft from a dwelling house, in the manner already indicated.

3. A febble attempt was made to challenge the conviction of the applicant, but the attempt was soon given up by his counsel. The only contention raised was with respect to the sentence. In this connection, it was contended that the applicant/accused was aged 19 years at the time of the commission of the crime, although he had attained the age of 22 years when the trial Court found him guilty. As the applicant was below 21 years of age on the date of the commission of the crime, Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) was squarely attracted, which contained an injunction to the courts forbidding them to impose sentence of imprisonment. It was urged that the Courts below were in error in ignoring the said injunction and in sentencing the applicant to imprisonment.

4. It does not admit of any doubt that the applicant was aged about 19 years at the time of the commission of the crime. The challan filed against him described him to be aged 19 years. Even in the array of the trial Court's judgment, the applicant was described as aged 19 years. The trial took about 3 1/2 years, calculating from the date of the commission of the crime. In that way, the applicant was aged more than 21 years on the date he was found guilty by the trial Court. The trial Court did not advert at all in its judgment to the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The appellate Court observed in its judgment that appellant was aged 24-25 years at the time of judgment by the trial Court, and considering the seriousness of the crime of house-breaking and the feeling of insecurity and alarm which such offences caused among the people, it was not advisable to extend to the applicant the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act. On this reasoning the appellate Court affirmed the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court. It is not known how the appellate Court arrived at the figure of 24-25 years, when it did not appear to be disputed that the applicant was aged about 19 years at the time of commission of the crime.

5. It will be seen that Section 6 of the Act lays down an injunction, as distinct from a discretion under Section 3 or Section 4, not to impose a sentence of imprisonment on a person who is under 21 years of age and is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment other than that for life, unless for reasons to be recorded by it, it is satisfied that it would not be desirable to deal with him under Section 3 or Section 4. It will f