Judgment : This revision is against the conviction and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in C.A.No. 22 of 1989 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil in S.C.No. 11 of 1980 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence under Secs.450, 394 and 392 read with Sec. 397, Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution alleged that this revision petitioner on 2. 1987 at about 2.15 p.m., entered into the house of P.W. 5 and snatched the chain of his wife P.W. 1 weighing 42 grams and when she resisted the attempt of the revision petitioner, he caused injuries with the knife on her abdomen and her left fingers. P.W. 1 has spoken about the incident and P.Ws.2 and 4 have spoken about the chasing of the revision petitioner after the commission of the offence. The prosecution case is that when he was arrested on 11. 1987 in connection with some other occurrence he gave confession regarding this theft leading to the recovery of the stolen chain in the form of ingot from P.W.7 to whom the revision petitioner had sold it. Identification parade also was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate for the identification of this revision petitioner and P.W. 1 has correctly identified him. Both the courts below, accepting the guilt of the revision petitioner, has convicted him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment, which is the minimum punishment for the offence under Sec.392 read with Sec.397, Indian Penal Code. 3. It is pertinent to mention that when this appeal was pending before the learned Sessions Judge Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, the counsel who appeared for the revision petitioner made an endorsement that he was not arguing the appeal on merit but was confining his argument with regard to the sentence only. It seems that the learned counsel for the petitioner before the lower appellate court argued for the modification of the sentence under Probation of Offenders Act. However, the learned Sessions Judge, rejecting the request of the accused, confirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court. Therefore, this revision has been filed. In this revision petition also, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has not raised anything challenging the conviction or placed any material on the merit of the case. In the revision also, sentence alone has been questioned. 4. Therefore, this revision has been filed. In this revision petition also, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has not raised anything challenging the conviction or placed any material on the merit of the case. In the revision also, sentence alone has been questioned. 4. Even though the counsel who appeared for the revision petitioner hereinbefore the lower appellate court did not argue on the merit of the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge has given his finding with regard to the charge against the revision petitioner holding that this revision petitioner had snatched the chain from P.W. 1 at the knife point causing injuries on her. Anyhow, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner herein was permitted to argue this revision on merit also. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Subbiah contended that P.W. 1 alone has identified the revision petitioner in the identification parade, which was conducted nearly 9 months after the occurrence and also in the court and as the occurrence took place on 2. 1987, P.W. 1 could not have recollected the identity of the person after 9 months to identify him in the identification parade on 111. 1987 and there were also possibilities for pointing out this revision petitioner to P.W. 1 while he was in the custody of the police after his arrest on 11. 1987 and therefore P.W. 1 identifying the revision petitioner in the parade cannot be without any previous arrangement before conducting the identification parade and the conviction on the mere identification of P.W. 1 is not proper. No doubt there was a wide gap of about 9 months between the time of occurrence and the identification parade. But one thing is certain from the complaint Ex.P-1 and that is P.W. 1 had clearly studied the identifying feature of the culprit at the time of the occurrence and therefore she has stated in the complaint that a man of about 21 years old and 5’ height with black complexion committed this offence. Unless she had clearly studied the features of the culprit, she could not have given this description in the complaint. It is not as if the occurrence took place in the flashing moment. Unless she had clearly studied the features of the culprit, she could not have given this description in the complaint. It is not as if the occurrence took place in the flashing moment. According to P.W. 1 when she was cleaning the pooja room, the culprit, who entered through the back door stood before her with the knife M.O. 1 and when he attempted to stab at her abdomen, she caught hold of the blade portion of the knife by her left-hand on account of which, sustained lacerations both in the abdomen and also in the left fingers and during that time, the culprit snatched her chain weighing 52 grams. She has also stated that with her right hand she caught hold of the chain, but except a small portion of about 10 grams, the rest of the chain went to the hands of the culprit who ran through the back door and when she shouted for help, her son P.W. 2, who was sitting in the front side of the house came and he along with P.W. 4, a mason working in the adjacent house, and P.W. 3 the neighbour chased the culprit, who scaled over the compound wall and ran away. From the narration of facts by P.W. 1, it is clear that there was scuffle between the culprit and P.W. 1 during the time of commission of the offence and therefore, P.W. 1 has studied the identifying features of the culprit for giving these details in her complaint. Therefore, it cannot be stated that P.W. 1 could not have been in a position to identify the culprit after a lapse of 9 months, it cannot be stated that the identity of a person will be vanished from the memory within a period of few months. Sometimes persons will be able to recollect a person even after the lapse of years. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the identification of P.W. 1 is false and this must be the result of a prearranged drama. In addition to P.W. 1, her son P.W. 2 also says that he chased this revision petitioner when he ran away from his house. P.W. 4 also chased the culprit. Even though the thief could not be caught the evidence is clear that P.W. 2 chased him for some distance. In addition to P.W. 1, her son P.W. 2 also says that he chased this revision petitioner when he ran away from his house. P.W. 4 also chased the culprit. Even though the thief could not be caught the evidence is clear that P.W. 2 chased him for some distance. Therefore, he also could have seen the accused and there is nothing strange in identifying the accused by him in the open court. Anyhow, the evidence of P.W. 1 cannot be lightly ignored. As observed by the learned trial Judge P.W. 1 who is a house-wife may not come forward to falsely implicate the revision petitioner stating that he was the person who entered into his house and snatched her chain at knife point. 6. The revision petitioner was arrested on 11. 1987 by P.W. 13 in the presence of P.W. 6 and P.Ws. 6 and 13 have stated that the revision petitioner herein gave a confession stating that the jewel was sold to P.W. 7 and P.W. 13 recovered 42 grams of gold ingot from P.W. 7, who admitted that the revision petitioner sold the gold chain for Rs. 1,800. Even though P.W. 7 did not support his earlier statement at the time of trial and would state that because of the threat by the police, he handed over the gold ingot, P.W. 6 has stated that P.W. 7 admitted the sale of the gold chain by the revision petitioner to him. Anyhow from the evidence of P.W. 1, I am fully satisfied that the revision petitioner was the culprit who committed the offence of house trespass and snatching of the chain from P.W. 1. Therefore, the courts below were perfectly right in convicting the revision petitioner for the offence mentioned above. 7. Coming to the question of sentence, the learned counsel Mr. Subbiah contended that under Sec. 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act if the convict is a person under 21 years of age, the court taking into consideration the circumstances and the nature of the offence may deal with him in the manner under Secs. 3 and 4 of the said Act and therefore the revision petitioner should have been released under the Probation of Offenders Act. There is nothing to show in this case that the revision petitioner is aged below 21 years. 3 and 4 of the said Act and therefore the revision petitioner should have been released under the Probation of Offenders Act. There is nothing to show in this case that the revision petitioner is aged below 21 years. P.W. 1 has mentioned in the complaint itself that he was about 21 years old at the time of the commission of the offence. Secondly it is not a mandatory provision that every person below 21 years, when found guilty, shall be dealt with only under the Probation of Offenders Act. As a matter of fact, the learned sessions Judge has considered this aspect and has found that the revision petitioner, who entered into the house of P.W. 1, had also stabbed her in her abdomen, but as P.W. 1 was able to catch hold of the knife, she sustained only minor injuries in the abdomen and also in her left fingers, which makes clear that he is a dangerous person to whom the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be invoked. I fully agree with the stand taken by the learned Sessions Judge. Even though in the charge-sheet the prosecution has mentioned about the previous convictions, they did not let in any evidence for that. Taking for granted that there was previous conviction, the conduct of the revision petitioner shows that he is a dangerous criminals and therefore he cannot be lightly treated for dealing with him under the Probation of Offenders Act. As the minimum sentence prescribed under Sec.392 read with Sec. 394, Indian Penal Code is 7 years, the courts below have imposed the punishment according to the provisions of the Code and therefore I find no reasons to interfere with the punishment also. 8. In the result, the revision is dismissed.