JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellant Pappu has been convicted under Section 354, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. He has also been convicted under Section 3(l)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. It has been further directed that out of the fine of Rs. 2,000/- an amount of Rs. 1,000/- be paid to Manju (P.W. 1) as compensation. 2. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and after careful scrutiny of the material on record this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences is unassailable. Manju (P.W. 1) has deposed that on 17-10-1995 at about 6 P.M. she went to Gopalpura handpump to fetch water. Accused Pappu came there, caught hold of her by her waist and pressed her breasts. Her testimony has been corroborated by her father Rameshwar (P.W. 2) and her brother-in-law Jaswant (P.W. 3). The FIR Exhibit P-l was promptly lodged. 3. Manju (P.W. 1) was about 16 years of age at the time of this incident. Accused Pappu was not more than 18 years of age on the date of incident. His age has been shown as 18 years in the charge-sheet filed by the police on 19-10-1995. Therefore he must have been a few days less than 18 years of age on the date of incident. There is no other material to prove that the age of the accused was more than 18 years on the date of incident. Section 19 of the Act provides that the provisions of Section 360 of the Code and the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act shall not apply to any person above the age of 18 years who is found guilty of having committed an offence under this Act. The age has to be reckoned as on the date of the incident. The age has to be reckoned as on the date of the incident. Now if the accused was not above the age of 18 years on the date of incident the case goes out of the embargo imposed by Section 19 of the Act and falls under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which lays down an injunction that a person under 21 years of age shall not normally be sentenced to imprisonment. This benign provision becomes available to the appellant to enable him to reform himself instead of his being sent to jail to come in association with hardened criminals. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the accused and his being the first offender it is considered expedient to release the appellant on probation of good conduct and therefore instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, it is directed that he shall be released, on his entering into a bond before the trial Court with a surety of Rs. 1,000/- to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the meanwhile to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court is set aside and he is directed to execute a bond in terms of this order. However the order of the trial Court for payment of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to Manju (P.W. 1) is maintained under Section 357(3) of the Code.