JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 9-5-79 partly allowing the petitioner's appeal. The learned A.M.J.M. (I), Jaipur District, Jaipur convicted the petitioner for the offence u/s 454, IPC and sentenced him to 10 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's R.I. He also convicted him u/s 380, IPC and sentenced him to 10 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. An appeal was preferred and the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioner of the offence u/s 454, IPC, but maintained the conviction u/s 380, IPC and reduced the sentence to 5 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's R.I. 2. In this revision, Mr. Shrimal did not argue on the merits of the case but only argued that the accused was below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offence. As such, it was incumbent on the court to grant him benefit of the probation and to release him under the Probation of Offenders Act. 3. Mr. Shrimal contended that the incident took place on 14-1-73. The allegation is that Surajmal submitted a report at the police station alleging that on 14-1-73 he put a Thela containing some jewellery in the shop and closed the shop. 15-1-73 was a holiday and/on 16-1-73 when he opened the shop he found the Thela missing from the shop On 17-1-73. Thela containing some jewellery was found at the Chabutra of Bhanwarlal Sonar's house and the other jewellery was not found in the Thela. On this report, after investigation the police submitted a challan against the petitioner u/s 454 and 380 IPC, and the trial court and the Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced him as stated above. While bringing the facts to my knowledge, Mr. Shrimal argued that on 14-1-73 the petitioner was below the age of 18 years. He brought to my notice the statement of the petitioner recorded u/s 313, Cr.PC on 30-10-76. In this statement, the accused stated his age as 21 years, while the trial court estimated it as 24-25 years. So, according to the accused the incident took place on 14-1-73 when he was below 18 years of age. He brought to my notice the statement of the petitioner recorded u/s 313, Cr.PC on 30-10-76. In this statement, the accused stated his age as 21 years, while the trial court estimated it as 24-25 years. So, according to the accused the incident took place on 14-1-73 when he was below 18 years of age. According to the estimate of the trial court the accused was below 21 years of age, Mr. Shrimal argued that the court should not substitute their own estimate about the age of the accused when he is examined u/s 313, Cr. PC. He based his argument on the case Raisul v. State of U.P., AIR 1977 SC 1822 . In this case the accused in his statement under section 342, Cr. PC stated his age as 18 years, and when the offence was committed by him he was below 18 years of age. The learned Sessions Judge after looking at the appellant estimated that he must not be below the age of 24 years and the High Court also held so on seeing the appellant personally. But, their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not agree with the estimate of the Sessions Judge as well as of the High Court. It was observed that the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court were not right in substituting their own estimate in regard to the age of the appellant and on the basis of such estimate rejecting the statement as to his age made by the appellant was not correct. 4. Thus in view of the case of Raisul (supra) I hold that the learned Magistrate was not correct in estimating the age of the accused. The learned Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge should have given benefit of I probation to the petitioner, who was below 18 years of age. In my view, this is a fit case in which the benefit of probation should be given to the accused - petitioner. 5. The revision petition is partly accepted, the conviction of the petitioner u/s 380, IPC is maintained, but instead of sending him to Jail, I order to release him on probation on furnishing one surety of Rs. 2,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of furnishing surety. 2,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of furnishing surety. If the petitioner commits the same offence during the above period, he shall undergo the sentence awarded to him by the appellate court. The surety be furnished within one month from today.Revision partly allowed. *******