JUDGMENT 1. - This is a criminal case under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (here in after called as the Act) against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Alwar dated July 28, 1977 giving the benefit of probation to the respondent No. 1. 2. It will suffice to state for the purposes of this appeal that father of the appellant and 3 others were joint owners of a well, which was fitted with electric pump, from which water for the purposes of irrigation in the fields of the partners was given from the well by turn. On March 1, 1977 it was turn of the father of appellant and the appellant at about 6 a.m. went there and started pump for irrigation of his land. Thereupon, accused respondent Nangi and some other persons started abusing the appellant and in the altercation, it was alleged that Hari Kishan grapped the appellant from behind and called Nangi accused, who took the axe lying near and inflicted a blow on the head on right side above the ear and inflicted another blow from the back side of the axe on the back of the head of the appellant. On raising alarm by the appellant, persons from nearby field came and intervened. In all 3 persons were challenged under Sections 307, 326 and 323/34 IPC, out of which the trial court acquitted other two accused persons but convicted the respondent No. 1 under Sections 325 and 323 IPC. However, while awarding punishment, the trial court by a separate order dated July 28, 1977 held that since the respondent No. 1 was below 21 years of age and for various other reasons he be released on probation for a period of one year under Section 6 of the Act. 3. The main contention of Shri R.K. Pareek, learned counsel for the appellant is that once the trial court found the respondent No. 1 guilty of offence under Sections 325 and 323, Indian Penal Code the benefit of Section 6 of the Act could not have been given to him unless a report from the Probation Officer was called and considered as required by Sub-clause (2) of Section 6 of the Act. It is contended that it is only when the court comes to the conclusion after taking into consideration the report of the Probation Officer and other reasons like circumstances, nature of the offence and character of the offender then the trial court decides to release him on probation. In the present case, since no report of the Probation Officer was called as required under Sub-clause (2) of Section 6 of the Act; the order of the trial court under appeal is liable to be set-aside and the respondent No. 1 be sentenced to the imprisonment for a suitable term by this court. 4. Shri R.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand contends that it is not necessary that the trial court should have called for the report of the Probation Officer as the respondent No. 1 was of 16 years age at the relevant time and thus below 21 years of age. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel that the trial court righly did not call for any report from the Probation Officer considering various circumstances and the age of respondent No. 1, thought fit to give the benefit of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act to him. 5. I have heard both the learned counsel and also gone through the judgment of the trial court. It will be necessary to go through Section 6 of the Act to understand its implication and the rival contentions raised by the parties. Section 6 of the Act reads as under:Restrictions on imprisonment of offenders under twenty one years of age- (1) When any person under twenty one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life) the court by which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it should not be desirable to deal with him under Section 3 or Section 4, and if the court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it shall record its reasons for doing so. (2) For the purpose of satisfying itself whether it would not be desirable to deal under Section 3 or Section 4 with an offender referred to in Sub-section (1), the court shall call for a report from the Probation Officer and consider the report, if any, and any other information available to it relating to the character and physical and mental condition of the offender. 6. It is clear from a bare reading of Section 6 that when any parson below the age of 21 years is found guilty to have committed offence, which is punishable with imprisonment, but not with imprisonment for life, the court is duty bound not to sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that keeping in view the various circumstances including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender it is of the opinion that it shall not be desirable to deal with him under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act and if the court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender it shall record its reasons for doing so. Sub-clause (2) of Section 6 of the Act lays down that for the purposes of satisfying itself whether it would not be desirable to deal with the offender under Section 3 or Section 4, the court shall call upon a report from the Probation Officer and consider the same before passing any order regarding punishment. It is, therefore, clear that it is not laid down any where in the above Section that if the court is of the opinion that the accused person should be given the benefit of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act as the age of the accused is below 21 years still a report of the Probation Officer must necessarily be called and considered before passing any such order. 7. The object of the Act is to prevent the turning of the youthful offenders into criminals by their association with hardened criminal of mature age with which they are bound to come in contact for long time while under going imprisonment in jail. It is precisely with this intention to see that youthful offender is given chance to improve and live a more peaceful and useful life that this Act was enacted. It is precisely with this intention to see that youthful offender is given chance to improve and live a more peaceful and useful life that this Act was enacted. Therefore, if the accused person is less than 21 years of age and does not have any adverse antecedent to furnish his character and the circumstances of the case are also such that the court is of the view that the offender be given chance to improve in his life, it is not necessary that the court should call upon the Probation Officer to file report about the offender before the benefit of provisions of Section 6 of the Act is extended to him. It may also be pointed ont that even under Section 4 of the Act court has power to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct, if a person is found to be guilty of having committed offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the court may instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct them to be released on bail on entering into bail bond with or without sureties to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. While exercising this power under Section 4 of the Act, there is no restriction of age as is found under Section 6 of the Act. This clearly indicates that when the court is dealing with the offender of below 21 years of age, the Act has enacted special provision and the court is obliged to record reasons why it is not in favour of giving benefit of the provisions of the Act even though the offender is below the age of 21 years. It will also be worth while to mention that similar powers are given to the court under Section 360 Cr.PC, in which also the court can release the offender on probation of good conduct or after admonition as it may find proper to do. 8. It will also be worth while to mention that similar powers are given to the court under Section 360 Cr.PC, in which also the court can release the offender on probation of good conduct or after admonition as it may find proper to do. 8. In the present case, from the circumstances, it is clear that there was no question of any pre-meditated attack, the quarrel arose suddenly on account of giving water to irrigate the field by one of the partners of the well, the respondent was of 16 years age at the relevant time and had no antecedents, which may indicate adverse impression and reflection on his character. Reliance has been placed on the case of Parasram v. State of Haryana 1974 Cr.LJ 39 in which similar view was taken. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the trial court has not acted illegally and has rightly given the benefit of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act to the respondent No. 1. 9. In the result, the appeal has no force and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******