Judgment :- This is a revision petition by the accused. A report was filed by the police officer to the effect that the petitioner-accused appeared to have committed an offence punishable under Sec. 8 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge. Thereupon the concerned Magistrate sent for report from the Probation Officer. After perusing the report of the Probation Officer from which it was gathered that the petitioner was not a person convicted for the first time, the court ordered the petitioner to be detained for a period of two years in a corrective institution under S. 10-A of the Act. 2. The accused preferred an appeal against the sentence. That appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court of North Arcot by judgment dt. 4-4-1985. Aggrieved by that judgment, the accused has preferred this revision. 3. The case of the revision petitioner is that upon a perusal of the report of the Probation Officer, the Court has passed a severer sentence against the accused and that before doing so, the court should have, under the provisions of S. 211(7) Cr.P.C. mentioned the fact, the date and place of the previous conviction to the accused either in the charge or at any time before the sentence was passed. It was contended that in the absence of such mention the sentence passed by the court below was illegal. 4. The contention as raised by the revision petitioner is not acceptable in as much as the order passed under S. 10A of the Act is not a sentence for attracting the provisions of S. 211(7) Cr.P.C. but a welfare measure and, therefore, the omission to put to the accused the details regarding the previous conviction will not in any manner affect the order. 5. However, it is to be pointed out that since S. 8 of the Act contemplates an enhanced punishment for the second or subsequent conviction the Magistrate should have followed the procedure prescribed by Section 211(7) Cr.P.C. as soon as he became aware of the previous conviction. On the other side, previous conviction will be a relevant factor for deciding whether the convict could be released after admonition as per Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. On the other side, previous conviction will be a relevant factor for deciding whether the convict could be released after admonition as per Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In such a case, it is enough that the previous conviction is proved; it is not necessary to add it in the charge. The accused will become aware of the court taking cognisance of the fact at the time of such proof. Previous conviction will be also relevant, as per Section 10(6) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, which requires the court to give reasons if it passes a sentence of imprisonment in respect of a person convicted for the first time. If no previous conviction has been proved, the court will have to presume that the accused is convicted for the first time. In the present case, it is mentioned in the judgment of the appellate Court that the accused was previously convicted in S.T.C. No. 466 of 1984 and the fact is not disputed before me. 6. Turning back to S. 10-A of the Act, it is worth mentioning that it contemplates a welfare measure in favour of the convicted person and such a measure imposed a heavy burden on the State by way of expenditure. Therefore, it should be resorted to only if it should be beneficial to the person concerned. For that purpose, the law requires as for S. 10A of the Act that the court should give an opportunity to the offender to be heard before passing an order under the section and consider the representation which the offender may make to the court as to the suitability of the case for treatment in a corrective institution. The Court also should be satisfied that the character, state of health and mental condition of the offender and the other circumstances of the case are such that the offender is likely to benefit by such instruction and discipline. In the order of the court below there is no indication that the accused was given the opportunity of being heard on the detention and that the court was satisfied that the accused would benefit by the detention. On the contrary, as per the opinion of the Probation Officer on which the court acted the accused was not amenable to any correction. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Magistrate has necessarily to be set aside. On the contrary, as per the opinion of the Probation Officer on which the court acted the accused was not amenable to any correction. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Magistrate has necessarily to be set aside. 7. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the order of the Magistrate is set aside and the Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and if necessary after a fresh report from the Probation Officer on the present way of life and conduct of the accused.