1. This revision under section 397/401 of CrPC is directed against the judgment dated 28.12.2011. The petitioner is convicted and sentenced by order dated 19.4.2011 passed by JMFC Vidisha in Criminal Case No. 908/09 whereby he was held guilty for the offence punishable under sections 354 and 448 of IPC and was ordered to undergo RI of two months and three months respectively for the said offences, which would run concurrently.

2. Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from pointing out perversity and apparent contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, also stated that both the Courts below have not addressed on the question of grant of benefit of probation to the petitioner as per sections 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C.

3. Shri Lahoti, in nutshell submits that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility for grant of said benefit of probation as per section 360 (1) of CrPC. He submits that both the provisions ought to have been taken into account by the Courts below. On this score alone, Shri Lahoti submits that the petitioner deserves to succeed.

4. I have also heard Shri B.K. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor, on this ground.

5. Section 360 (1) CrPC shows that if a person is above 21 years of age and is punished for a term of less than seven years, his case may be considered for grant of benefit of probation. Another requirement is that there is no previous conviction against such person.

6. A careful perusal of the order of JMFC dated 19.4.2011 shows that in para 15 there is a specific finding that there is no material on record which shows that petitioner was previously convicted in any other matter and he became accused for the first time. Admittedly, the age of petitioner is above 21 years. Thus, I find force in the argument of Shri Lahoti that the petitioner was eligible for consideration by the Court for the purpose of grant of benefit of probation.

7. Sections 360 and 361 of CrPC were considered by this Court in a case reported in 1992 (1) MPJR 331 (Prakash v. State of M.P.). Relevant paragraph No. 5,6 and 7 are reporduced here as under :-

5. The criminal jurisprudence dealing with imposition of sentence has undergone a change with the enactment of the Act, which is a milestone in the progress of the modem liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. See Rattanllal v. State of Punjab (AIR 1965 SC 444).

6.1t is with this purpose of reformation of the offender that sections 360 and 361, CrPC have been enacted. S. 360 empowers the Court to deal leniently with a person who has committed an offence for the first time by releasing him on probation of good conduct instead of giving punishment, in order to give him a chance of reforming himself and to protect him from being corrupted and turned into a regular criminal. If the Court refrains from dealing with an offender under section 360 CrPC or under the provisions of the Act, or any other law for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, where the Court could have done so, section 361, which is a new provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, makes it mandatory for the Court to record in its judgment the 'special reasons' for not doing so. Section 361 thus casts a duty upon the Court to apply the provisions of section 360 whereever it is possible to do so and to state "special reasons" if it does not do so. In the context of section 360, the "special reasons" contemplated by section 361 must be such as to compel the Court to hold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender after examining the matter with due regard to the age, character and antecedents of the offender and the circumstanmces in which the offence was committed. See Bishnu Deo v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1979 SC 964).

7. Looked with that view, in fact, no special reasons have been assigned by