Judgment 1. There is only one petitioner in this case. He has been convicted under Sec.294 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. After his conviction by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was heard by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Patna, and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter preferred the present application in revision and it may be mentioned that is was admitted by the Bench only on the question of sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, was as follows. Vijay Rani (P.W. 8), daughter of the informant Awadhesh Kumar Verma, an employee of the Public Relation Department of the Government of Bihar, was in the morning shift of the School and on the 12th November, 1965, at about 6 A.M. the informant went to the main road with his daughter so that he may reach the girl to the bus for going to her School. It is said that at that time, when the informant had gone some steps ahead behind his daughter, the petitioner came on a cycle from a lane and he slowed his cycle near the girl and accosted her. He uttered the words, "Rani Ban Than Kar Kahan Ja Rahi Ho." It was the further case of the prosecution that the petitioner told the girl to come along with him on his cycle and he would reach her. The age of the girl was about 12 to 13 years and it is further said that the petitioner was in the habit of teasing and vexing her by using vulgar and obscene words, whenever this petitioner found the girl passing alone. 3. According to the prosecution, the informant ran to catch hold of the petitioner, but he speeded his cycle and fled away from there. But, Radha Shyam Dutta (P.W. 2), who is a retired responsible Government Officer, was close by and he would see the occurrence and could identify the petitioner. An F.I.R. was lodged and then the Police took up investigation and charge-sheet was submitted in the case. But, Radha Shyam Dutta (P.W. 2), who is a retired responsible Government Officer, was close by and he would see the occurrence and could identify the petitioner. An F.I.R. was lodged and then the Police took up investigation and charge-sheet was submitted in the case. The learned Magistrate, as stated above, found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Sec.294 of the Penal Code and there is thus a concurrent finding both by the learned Magistrate and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, on the point that the petitioner was guilty under S.294 of the Penal Code. 4. As stated above, the present application in revision has been admitted only on the question of sentence and, therefore, the only point which arises for consideration is whether in this case there would be any justification for interference or some modification in the sentence which has been imposed on the petitioner. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that considering the age of the petitioner and also the report of the Probation Officer, the petitioner should have been let off on probation and an order should have been passed as contemplated by S.6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. This position is not disputed that the petitioner was below twenty-one years of age and be would thus come within the purview of S.6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The report of the Probation Officer had also been called for and it is on the record. I have also looked into that report. I also find from the Judgement, both of the learned Magistrate as well as of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, that they were fully cognizant and conscious of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and they have also considered the report of the Probation Officer, which had been received in the case. But, considering the nature and the circumstances of the case, both the Courts did not think it proper to pass an order, as contemplated by S.6 of the Act and they have given good and cogent reasons, in my opinion, for awarding a substantive sentence of imprisonment against the petitioner. But, considering the nature and the circumstances of the case, both the Courts did not think it proper to pass an order, as contemplated by S.6 of the Act and they have given good and cogent reasons, in my opinion, for awarding a substantive sentence of imprisonment against the petitioner. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has also referred it this aspect of the matter that offences of the nature of teasing school girls are becoming very common and, I think, the Courts cannot also shut their eyes to what is happening. At the time of hearing this matter, my reaction was that the sentence which had been passed was rather lenient, but unfortunately, I find that S.294 of the Penal Code lays down a maximum sentence of three months, and, I think that perhaps the Legislature may have to think of amending the section in contest of the events which are happening, so that a more severe sentence may be provided in this section. 6. Considering all the aspects of the matter, I do not think that it is a fit case, in any way, in which the powers under the Probation of Offenders Act should be exercised and the learned Magistrate and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge rightly did not pass any such order as contemplated by S.6 of the Act and they have very correctly passed a substantive sentence. 7. The revision application is therefore, dismissed.