Short Note : 1. The respondents were tried for offences under sections 394 and 394/34 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam in Criminal Case No. 1706 of 1974. In this trial though the individual charges under section 394 IPC were not found established against the respondents, but they were convicted under section 394/34 IPC. Sentencing the respondents to punishment for the aforesaid offence, the learned trial Magistrate took the view that as all the respondents were below the age of 21 years, they should be released on admonition. The result was that though the respondents were convicted, they were not sentenced to any punishment and were given the benefit of sections 3 and 4 read with section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Held : The offence under section 394 IPC is punishable either with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. The convict is also liable to fine. The benefit under the probation of Offenders Act is extended by the learned Magistrate only on the ground that all the respondents were below 21 years of age. No evidence was taken regarding the age of the respondents when they were convicted. It appears that merely on the estimate of the age of the respondents made by the learned trial Magistrate, during their examination under section 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; it was presumed that the respondents are below 21 years of age. Ordinarily when a question arises for giving benefit under section 6 of the Act to any convicted persons, the Court must on some reliable evidence first ascertain the age of the accused on the date of conviction and if it is established that the age of the convict is below 21 years and the offence for which the accused is convicted is not punishable with imprisonment for life, then and then only the question of extending the benefit under section 3 or section 4 of the Act should be considered. 2. In this case the learned trial Magistrate initially committed an error in not first satisfying himself about the age of the accused on the date of conviction. 2. In this case the learned trial Magistrate initially committed an error in not first satisfying himself about the age of the accused on the date of conviction. The other error committed by the learned Magistrate was that considering the offence for which the accused were convicted and the punishment provided for the same under the Indian Penal Code no benefit under sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act could be extended to the accused. The order of the learned Magistrate was, therefore, manifestly without jurisdiction as it was passed in total disregard of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, as also of the India Penal Code. 3. According to section 377 Cr. P. C., the State Government is competent to prefer an appeal to this Court on the ground of inadequacy of sentence. The provisions of section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code, therefore, clearly contemplate a case where the accused has been sentenced but the sentence in the opinion of the State Government is inadequate. If the accused is not sentenced to any punishment and has been dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, then certainly it cannot be said that the accused has been sentenced but the sentence is inadequate. For such a case, the appropriate provision is found in sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act. As already stated above, the proper forum for suitable sentence being awarded was the Court of Session and not this Court. It must, therefore, be held that the present appeal to this Court is not competent. 4. As the matter has come to the knowledge of this Court and it is found that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is manifestly illegal, this Court is competent to exercise revisional powers under section 401, Criminal Procedure Code. I, accordingly, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court, set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate extending benefit to the respondents under the Probation of Offenders Act. Case remanded.