D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision petition the accused persons have assailed the appellate judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 1985 confirming the decision of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kendrapara (S. D. J. M.) in I. C. C. No. 156 of 1983 and convicting them under Ss. 323 / 379 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code ('i. P. C. ' for short) and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- on each Count. ( 2 ) ON the complaint filed by the opposite party the aforementioned case was registered. The case of the complainant in a nutshell was that shortly before the incident which gave rise to the present case, the accused persons had forcibly entered his house, damaged the door frames, cot, etc. His brother had sent him a telegram about the incident and had lodged a report at the police station. On getting the information, the complainant who was working at Choudwar in a stationeryshop started for his house. On 12-5-1983 at about 6 p. m. the accused persons wrongfully restrained him on the way, abused him in filthy language, assaulted him with fist blows and slaps and questioned him as to why his brother had reported against them at the police station. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, Abhaya Kumar Sahu and Rajan Kumar Sahu snatched away the bag in which he had kept three sarees, one Lungi, one Napkin and fruits worth Rs. 181/ -. Petitioner Madhusudan removed Rs. 200/- from his chest pocket and thereafter all the petitioners left the spot. Since the police failed to take any action on the report lodged by his brother the complainant filed the complaint petition before the S. D. J. M. ( 3 ) THE plea of the petitioners was one of complete denial of their involvement in the case. According to them, a false case was foisted against them. ( 4 ) THE complainant examined himself and three other witnesses who had witnessed the occurrence. One witness was examined on behalf of the petitioners who stated, inter alia, that the petitioners had supported him in a litigation against the brother-in-law of the complainant. According to them, a false case was foisted against them. ( 4 ) THE complainant examined himself and three other witnesses who had witnessed the occurrence. One witness was examined on behalf of the petitioners who stated, inter alia, that the petitioners had supported him in a litigation against the brother-in-law of the complainant. ( 5 ) THE trial Court on scrutiny of the evidence on record held that the petitioners had assaulted the complainant on 12-5-83 and that all of them, with common intention, had committed theft of the articles in question and took away cash from possession of the complainant on the date, at the time and the place of occurrence. On these findings, the learned Magistrate held that the complainant had successfully proved the charges levelled against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he convicted them under Ss. 323/379/34, I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months on each count and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, with the further direction that the sentences will run concurrently. While considering the question of sentence, the Court observed that it is flashed in newspapers every day that due to the theft and assault by culprits, human life and property are in peril. Considering the nature of the offence and the highhanded action of the accused persons, he did not like to release them under any of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders' Act. ( 6 ) ON appeal by the accused persons, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on a fresh look at the evidence on record agreed with the finding of the trial Court and confirmed the conviction of the accused persons of the charges noted earlier. Regarding the sentence, the appellate Court was inclined to take a lenient view and held that since the offences committed by the appellants were not gruesome in nature, ends of justice would be served if the order of sentence of fine as imposed by the learned S. D. J. M. was maintained and the order of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months was set aside. Accordingly he directed, the petitioners to pay fine of Rs. Accordingly he directed, the petitioners to pay fine of Rs. 200/ - each, on each count and set aside the sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial Court. He further directed that out of the fine amount realised from the petitioners, a sum of Rs. 300/- will be paid to the complainant by way of compensation. Hence, this revision petition. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that the Courts below erred in placing reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 in view of certain discrepancies in their statements and improbabilities in their conduct. On perusal of the judgment of the Courts below, I find that the concurrent findings arrived at by them are based on-fairly detailed discussions of the evidence on record and cogent reasons have been given for accepting the versions of P. Ws. 2 to 4 who fully supported the case of P. W. 1, the complainant. On consideration, I find little scope to interfere with the concurrent decisions of the Courts below, convicting the petitioners of the charges noted earlier. ( 8 ) THEN the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Courts below ought to have given the benefit of sub-sec. (3) of S. 360, Cr. P. C. to the petitioners. The contention needs consideration. S. 360 deals with the release of accused on probation of good conduct or after admonition. Sub-sec. (3) of the said section provides, inter alia, that in any case in which a person is convicted of theft, theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any offence under the Penal Code punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous conviction is proved against him, the Court before which he is so convicted may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition. Sub-section (4) of the said section provides that an order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its power of revision. Under sub-sec. Sub-section (4) of the said section provides that an order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its power of revision. Under sub-sec. (10) of the said section, it is provided that nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act (20 of 1958) or the Children Act (16 of 1960), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders. ( 9 ) IN S. 361 provision is made that where in any case the Court could have dealt with- (a) an accused person under Section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or (b) a youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so. S. 360 applies to both young and adult offenders. The section applies to two classes of persons: (1) Women and all persons under the age of 21 years and (2) persons over that age. For applicability of the section, two conditions must co-exist; (i) no previous conviction is proved, and (ii) the offence must be of the character specified in the section. In exercising the discretion, the Court is to have regard to the other directions in the section, viz. the age, character and antecedents of the offender and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed. The object of the section is to offer an alternative to the Courts so that in the case of first offender of tender age they may offer them a further chance to turn over a new leaf. To send such persons to jail any have the effect of turning into habitual criminals those who have drifted without thinking into crime. Sub-section (3) applies (i) to the offences specifically named therein and (ii) also to any other offence under the Penal Code punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment, or any offence punishable with fine only. Reading the provisions of Ss. 360 and 361, Cr. Sub-section (3) applies (i) to the offences specifically named therein and (ii) also to any other offence under the Penal Code punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment, or any offence punishable with fine only. Reading the provisions of Ss. 360 and 361, Cr. P. C. , it is clear that the trial Court as well as the revisional Court are duty bound to consider the question whether the delinquent should be given the benefit of the provisions of S. 360 and if the Courts take the view in the negative, specific reason is to be recorded why the accused should not be given the benefit of the section. ( 10 ) IN the present case, the petitioners were charged under Ss. 379/ 323/ 34, I. P. C. The offence of theft is specifically mentioned in sub-section (3) and the offence of voluntarily causing hurt is punishable under S. 323 with imprisonment which may extend to one year. Therefore sub-sec. (3) of Section 360 is applicable to the case. As noted earlier, the trial Court observed that at present high handed actions of the type alleged in the case have become common and are being reported in newspapers every day therefore he was not inclined to give the accused persons the benefit of S. 360. The lower appellate Court has not discussed the matter at all in his judgment. The consideration of the matter by the trial Court, in my view, was not proper and the reason stated in its judgment was irrelevant. What S. 360 (3) requires is that in the category of cases to which the sub-section applies, where no previous conviction is proved against the accused, the Court should consider the question whether the benefit under the provision can be given to the accused having regard to the age, character, antecedents and the physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circusmtances under which the offence was committed. The Court has therefore to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before it and not to deal with the matter in a casual manner on the general impression that such offences are being committed often. It is not in dispute that no previous conviction has been proved against any of the petitioners. The Court has therefore to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before it and not to deal with the matter in a casual manner on the general impression that such offences are being committed often. It is not in dispute that no previous conviction has been proved against any of the petitioners. As the trial Court's judgment shows petitioner, Ranjan Kumar Sahoo was aged 21 years, petitioner Abhaya Kumar Sahoo was aged about 25 years and petitioner, Madhusudan Sahoo was aged about 44 years at the time of occurrence. The lower appellate Court has observed that the offence was not committed in gruesome manner and the offences in their very nature are not very serious. Therefore, I do not see any good reason why the reformative provisions in S. 360 (3) should not be applied in the case and the petitioners given an opportunity to improve themselves. Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offence, the age, character and antecedents of the offenders, in my view, the ends of justice will be met by releasing the petitioners after admonition and directing them to pay compensation. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY while maintaining the order of conviction against the petitioners, I set aside the sentence of fine imposed by the lower appellate Court and instead release the petitioners after due admonition as provided in sub-sec. (3) read with sub-sec. (4) of S. 360, Cr. P. C. and further direct the petitioners to pay Rs. 300/- as compensation to the opposite party. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.