ORDER : This revision petition, filed by the accused in Sessions Case No.56 of 1978 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Palghat, convicted under S.376 read with S.511 IPC. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, has been admitted only on the question "whether the petitioner is liable or should have been dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act". 2. The revision petitioner was charged before the learned trial Judge under S.376 IPC. on the allegation that on 15-7-1978 at about 6 p.m. he, who is a tailor running a tailoring shop in Thenur village, Parali Amsom, Palghat committed rape on Kanakam aged 12 years, who went there to give him some tailoring work. After trial the learned trial Judge found that the offence of rape has not been made out, but that an offence of attempted rape has been made out and convicted him under S.376 read with S.511 IPC. The learned trial Judge did not consider whether the provisions of the Probation of Offenders' Act 1958 (for short Probation Act) or the provision of S.360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the code) are applicable to the facts of the case and if so whether they should be applied 3. One of the questions which arise for consideration is whether the offence under S.376 read with S.511 IPC. is one of those offences which could at all be dealt with under S.4 of the Probation Act or S.360 of the code. S.4 of the Probation Act and S.360 of the code lay down that a person found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life could be dealt with thereunder in appropriate cases, subject to the various conditions laid down therein. Every court convicting a juvenile under 21 years of age has a statutory duty to apply, subject to eligibility, the beneficial probation provisions contained in the Probation Act, or the code unless in appropriate cases, for reasons recorded in writing, the court is satisfied that it is undesirable to apply such provisions, vide S.6 of Probation Act. 4. S.551 IPC. Every court convicting a juvenile under 21 years of age has a statutory duty to apply, subject to eligibility, the beneficial probation provisions contained in the Probation Act, or the code unless in appropriate cases, for reasons recorded in writing, the court is satisfied that it is undesirable to apply such provisions, vide S.6 of Probation Act. 4. S.551 IPC. prescribes that an offender punishable under that provision can be punished "with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both". An offence under S.376 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also fine. S.57 IPC. makes it clear that in calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years. Reading S.57, 376 and 511 IPC. together, it is clear that an offence under S.376 read with S.511 IPC. cannot be regarded as an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. Therefore, the ineligibility contemplated under S.4 of the Probation Act and S.360 of the code will not apply to a case of this kind. 5. S.6 of the Probation Act as well as S.361 of the Code require that after convicting a juvenile, courts must specially apply their mind in the matter of imposing a sentence or dealing with the offender under the provisions of Probation Act etc. Applying the Probation Act is the normal rule in the case of a juvenile, the non-application being only an exception to be decided by the court for recorded reasons In the case of a juvenile offender law requires that report from the Probation Officer is called for, to assist the court incoming to a conclusion in the matter of applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Probation Act or the Code It is not submitted before me that the learned trial Judge had called for or obtained such a report. On the other hand, no such report appears to have been received Without such a report, it is not desirable that a court should consider this question. 6. On the other hand, no such report appears to have been received Without such a report, it is not desirable that a court should consider this question. 6. In the result, the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner by the trial Judge is set aside. The proceedings are remanded to the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Palghat for dealing with the offender in accordance with law with reference to the provisions of Probation Act. These observations may not be understood to imply that facts do justify or do not justify the application of the provisions of the Probation Act in the instant case. That is a matter which has to be decided solely by the Judge in accordance with the principles laid down in the Probation Act. The revision petition is allowed to this extent. Allowed