S.N. Phukan, J.;- By this judgment and order we propose to dispose of the Criminal appeal No. 20/85 filed by the State of Assam against the judgment dated 20.2.85 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 16 (NL)/84. It may be stated that by the impugned judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge found two accused persons, who are opposite parties, guilty u/s 325/34IPC. However, considering that the accused persdns are young and acted on a sudden provocation and there was no previous conviction the learned court by invoking section 360 CrPC released the accused persons on entering a bond of Rs. 3000/- each with one surety for a period of 3 years for the purpose of maintaining peace and good behaviour. Though appeal has been filed on the assumption that it was a judgment of acquittal, Mr. J. Singh, learned PP has rightly pointed out that as the accused persons were convicted the present appeal has to be converted to an appeal u/s 377 CrPC and need not to be treated as an appeal u.s 378 CrPC. Without going into the question whether legally it is possible or not, we allow the prayer of the learned PP and treat this as an appeal u/s 377 CrPC. So the question in this appeal is regarding the quantum of sentence. 3. Two interesting points have been raised by Mr. J. Singh, learned PP namely the learned Sessions Judge ought to have awarded a sentence and thereafter release the accused persons on probation and secondly in view of the provision of Section 19 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short the Act), section 360 CrPC is not applicable. 4."Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party has urged that the appeal has become infructuous as the bond was executed in the year 1983 and the period of 3 years is over and as such the question of enhancing the sentence cannot and does not arise . The contention of Mr. Das has considerable force but as Mr. Singh has raised two important points we would like to express our views. 5. The contention of Mr. Das has considerable force but as Mr. Singh has raised two important points we would like to express our views. 5. We quote below sections 360 and 361 CrPC, 1973 : "360 - Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition - (1) When any person not under twenty one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any persons under twenty one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a 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 the peace and be of good behaviour. 361 : Special reasons lo be recorded in certain cases - 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 (20 of 1958), or (b) A youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 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." From reading of the above section 360 it is very clear that the legislature, inter alia, has laid down that if a person is convicted and the conditions laid down in sub-section 7 are satisfied the court instead of sentencing the accused to any punishment may direct that he be released on entering into a bond, with or without surities to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding 3 years, as the court may direct and in the mean time to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The words "instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment" clearly indicates, in our opinion, that if section 360 is invoked sentence need not be imposed at once and it can be imposed only if there is violation of the provisions of the bond or the circumstances appearing in said section 360. Therefore the first point is answered accordingly and in other words no sentence need be imposed after conviction and before directing to execute a bond under this section. 5. Regarding the second point i.e. in the areas where Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is applicable section 360 CrPC does not apply in view of section 19 of the Act, before dealing with this question we may examine the scheme of the Act. 7. Section 3 of the Act empowers the court to release certain offenders after admonition. This section, inter alia, provides that when any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or 380 or 381 or 404 or 420IPC or for offence, punishable with imprisonment for more than 2 years or with fine and there is no previous conviction, the court after having found the person guilty and having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender may instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct u/s 4 of the Act release him after due admonition. Section 4 empowers the Court to release certain offender on probation of good conduct. Section 4 empowers the Court to release certain offender on probation of good conduct. The said section inter alia provides that when any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release the accused on probation of good conduct, the Court may instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding 3 years, as the court may direct and in the meantime to keep peace and good behaviour. Reading sub-section (2) and (3) of the said section we find that before passing any order the Court may consider the report of the Probation Officer and further after passing the order may direct that the offender shall remain under supervision of the Probation Officer. Section 5 of the Act empowers the court to direct payment of compensation by the released offender for loss and injury-sustained to any person as a result of the offence . Section 6 puts restriction on the Court regarding imprisonment of offenders under 21 years of age. This section, inter alia, provides that when any person under 21 years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment but not with imprison­ment for life the Court shall not sentence him lo imprisonment unless it is satisfied 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 4 and if the court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender reasons shall have to be recorded. Section 7 inter alia, provides that the report of the Probation Officer shall be treated as confidential. Section 8 empowers the court for variation of conditions of probation. Section 9 of the Act lays down the consequences, if the offender fails to observe the conditions of the bond. Section 7 inter alia, provides that the report of the Probation Officer shall be treated as confidential. Section 8 empowers the court for variation of conditions of probation. Section 9 of the Act lays down the consequences, if the offender fails to observe the conditions of the bond. Section 10 is regarding the surety and the bond to be executed under the Act and provides that the relevant provisions of the CrPC as mentioned in the said section shall apply in case of such bonds and sureties also. Section 11 provides that the High Court, Appellate Court or the revisional Court shall have also power to pass orders under the Act and further order passed under the Act by any Court except High Court, shall not be bar to file any appeal. Section 12 is important and it, inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Section 13 is regarding appointment of Probation Officer. Section 14 is in respect of the duties of Probation Officers. Section 15 declares that the Probation Officer is a public servant. Section 16 gives protection for action taken in good faith by any Probation Officer or my other officer under the Act. Section 17 empowers the government to make Rules. Section 18, inter alia, provides that nothing in this Act shall affect the provision of section 31 of the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897, or sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or of any law in force in any State relating to juvenile offenders or borstal schools. Section 19 runs as follows: "19. Section 562 of the Code not to apply in certain areas - Subject to the provisions of Section 18, section 562 of the Code shall cease to apply to the States or parts thereof in which this Act is brought into force." 8. To find out whether both the Act and the provisions of section 360 CrPC, 1973 can hold the field it is necessary to find out me intention of the legislature. To find out whether both the Act and the provisions of section 360 CrPC, 1973 can hold the field it is necessary to find out me intention of the legislature. It may be mentioned that the section 360 under the new CrPC of 1973 contains not only the section 562 of the old CrPC of 1898 but also the sections 380, 563 and 564. It may be stated that from the scheme of the Act quoted above the provisions of the Act are much wider and that apart, under the Act there is a protection given to an accused inasmuch as after a person is found guilty of an offence and if any order is passed in his favour under section 3 or 4 of the Act the accused shall not suffer disqualification attaching to a conviction of an offence under relevant law. But there is no such provision for removal of such disqualification in section 360 CrPC 1973 or under section 562 CrPC, 1898. The object of all interpretation of any statute or Rule is to discover the intention of the legislature or the Rule maker and such intention must be deduced, from the language used. Coming to the case in hand we may first state that the Act was enacted in the year 1958 but the new CrPC in the year 1973. In other words the legislature was well aware of the provisions of the Act including section 19. If it would have been the intention of the legislature not to apply section 360 CrPC to the areas where the Act is in force it would have been expressly stated in the said section 360. As this has not been done by implication we can safely hold that legislature intended that both the provisions of the Act and section 360 CrPC may co-exist in the same area. That apart section 361 was newly added in the CrPC, 1973 and this section, inter alia, provides that where in any case the court could have dealt with an accused person under section 360 or under provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so. Thus from reading section 361 CrPC it is absolutely clear that the intention of the legislature is that the provisions of section 360 CrPC and the Act may co-exist in the same area. 9. Considering the condition of the people of the country in some cases it may not be necessary to invoke the provision of the Act and the case can be disposed of unaer section 360 CrPC where the procedure is simple. The discretion shall have to be applied judicially by the trial court as the court would have to find out whether benefit of the provisions of the Act is necessary in any particular case. We may add there is no repugnancy between the Act and section 360 CrPC, 1973. 10 In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Surendra Kumar vs Stale of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 SC1048 wherein it was held that section 360 CrPC, 1973 is mandatory. In Rosfianali Bwhanali Syed vs State of Gujarat, AIR 1982 SC 784 , 1982, Crl LJ 629 we found that the apex court in this case from Gujarat gave the benefit of the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to a person who was above 21 years of age under the circumstances stated in the said judgment. We find that the provisions of the Act were applied to the whole State of Rajasthan with effect from 1.1.1962 by a notification. Though the Act was in force in the said State in Surendra Kumar (Supra) the apex court held that section 360 CrPC is mandatory. Though the point before us did not come up specially for consideration of the Lordships from that case by implication we can safely come to the conclusion that though both the Act and Section 360 CrPC were in force in the State of Rajasthan the apex court allowed the application of the jprovisions of section 360 CrPc, 1973 and also held that it is mandatory. 11. Mr. Singh has placed before us the decision of the Kerala High Court in the State of Kerala vs Chellappan George & Ors 1983 CrLJ 1780 . 11. Mr. Singh has placed before us the decision of the Kerala High Court in the State of Kerala vs Chellappan George & Ors 1983 CrLJ 1780 . On perusal of the said judgment we found that the learned single Judge relying on the provisions of the section 8 of the General Clauses Act of 1897 held that where the Act in force the section 360 CrPC, 1973 is not applicable in view of section 19 of the Act. With respect we are unable to accept the view expressed in the above decision for the reasons we state. Section 8 is regarding construction of reference to repealed enactments. In the said section the expression "unless a different intention appears" has been used. Thus it is clear that in applying section 8 also, regarding construction of the replaced enactments, we have to find out the intention of the legislature. We may, however, mention that in para 9 of the judgment it was observed that both the Act and section 360 CrPC may co-exist but not in the same area. We are not at all convinced that if both the Act and the section 360 CrPC can co-exist, why not in the same area. We say so as there is no repugnancy between the Act and section 360 CrPC. We are of the opinion that section 8 of the General Clauses Act need not be considered as we have to find out the intention of the legislature while ascertaining the problem of the present nature. 12. hi view of what has been stated above we hold that after an accused is convicted and before applying the provision of section 360 CrPC, 1973 the sentence need not be imposed by the Court and such sentence may have to be passed only if it is necessary during the period of the bond, to be executed under the Act. We further hold that although section 360 CrPC and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 apply to the same area and it is for the court to decide as to whether provisions of section 360 CrPC or the provision of the Act shall be applied in appropriate cases and doing so the court shall apply its judicial discretion. 13. Mr. Singh has also submitted regarding facts of the case. But as pointed out by Mr. 13. Mr. Singh has also submitted regarding facts of the case. But as pointed out by Mr. Das as the period has already expired, we donot intend to enter into this aspect of the matter. Moreover, we are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge properly applied the provisions of section 360 CrPC. For the reasons stated above the appeal is dismissed.