Malik Sharief-Ud-Din ( 1 ) THE petitioner was tried for an offenceunder section 379 Indian Penal Code and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for 2 years by the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. First appellate court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge recordeda concurrent finding and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. ( 2 ) THE brief facts are that on 30/03/1981 at about 9 p. m. whilethe complainant Nanak Chand was travelling in a crowded bus the petitioner Rajinder at Chowk Pahar Ganj removed a sum of Rs. 5. 00 and a cardmarked as Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 in the case from his pocket. In the process ofpicking the pocket of Nanak Chand, Nanak Chand caught hold of Rajinderand with the help of another person Sat Prakash and co-passengers took himto the police station where a case was registered and the stolen articles seized. I have gone through the seizure memo. In this it is faithfully stated thatboth the stolen goods were produced by the complainant Nanak Chand whoalleged that after his pocket was picked by the petitioner he caught hold ofthe petitioner and recovered the stolen goods from him. ( 3 ) AT trial Sat Prakash Public Witness appears to have turned hostile and hasrefused to support the prosecution case. He, however, admitted that he wastravelling in the same bus when an alarm was raised by the complainantthat his pocket had been picked up. According to him, the petitioner wasfound in drunken condition and on being overpowered he was taken to thepolice station. He, however, states that nothing was recovered from thepossession of the petitioner. The testimony of this Public Witness Sat Prakash, eventhough hostile to the prosecution, partly supports the prosecution that thepocket of the complainant Nanak Chand was picked up in the bus. Hiscontention that nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioneris of no consequence because the case of the complainant is that soonafter his pocket was picked by the petitioner he overpowered him and tookaway the goods from the petitioner. The complainant Nanak Chand hassupported the prosecution case in all its material details and there is noreason to disbelieve him, particularly in view of the fact that be is not at allbiased against the petitioner. In fact, he did not know the petitionerpreviously and there is no earthly. reason for him to involve aninnocentperson falsely. The complainant Nanak Chand hassupported the prosecution case in all its material details and there is noreason to disbelieve him, particularly in view of the fact that be is not at allbiased against the petitioner. In fact, he did not know the petitionerpreviously and there is no earthly. reason for him to involve aninnocentperson falsely. Furthermore, this is a case where even a hostile witness hassupported the prosecution case. The trial court as well as the appellatecourt has, therefore, in my view rightly found him guilty and sentenced himto a term of imprisonment. I find nothing improper or illegal about theorder. ( 4 ) IT is, however, contended before me that the trial court ought tohave considered the case of the petitioner under section 360 Criminal Procedure Code It isalso argued that the trial court was duty bound to give special reasons fornot extending the benefits under section 360 to the petitioner particularly inview of his not being a previous convict. Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code confers adiscretion on the court that it may, in special circumstances mentionedtherein, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment direct that be be releasedon his entering into a bond with or without surety to appear and receivesentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years asthe court map fix. This discretion, of course, has to be exercised judiciously360and not arbitrarily. Section 361 Criminal Procedure Code will come only into play if thecourt finds that it ought to have dealt with the case under section 360 Cr. P. C. but refuses to offer any benefit to the convict therein. In the present case,it appears that this aspect was not considered by the trial court, though thetrial court has noticed the antecedents and the responsibilities of the petitioner and has made further observation that he does not deserve anyleniency. The appellate court, however, has devoted a full para in itsjudgment to this aspect and has pointed out various reasons as to why adeterrent punishment is warranted. While in the very nature of the offenceit is not possible to bring such an offender to book unless he is caught in theprocess of picking some body s pocket. Pick pockets belong to a trainedtribe whose activities very often go unnoticed. They are further mainlyoperating in crowded places and buses. While in the very nature of the offenceit is not possible to bring such an offender to book unless he is caught in theprocess of picking some body s pocket. Pick pockets belong to a trainedtribe whose activities very often go unnoticed. They are further mainlyoperating in crowded places and buses. The fact that he is not a previousconvict does not necessarily mean that be is not trained in the picking ofpockets. It only shows that he was not caught earlier. This is not a case,therefore, where the court should exercise its powers under section 360cr. P. C. Dismissed. Revision dismissed.