AMAR SARAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Criminal Revision arises from a judgment and order dated 31-1-1986 in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1984, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Shri Brahma Singh, had dismissed the appeal against the conviction of the applicant under Section 406 IPC recorded by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Shahjahanpur maintaining the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment passed against the applicant, but, strangely enough, whilst dismissing the criminal appeal, the learned Sessions Judge has, in addition, imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000. This part of the order, whereby, in a criminal appeal against conviction, the learned Sessions Judge has, whilst dismissing the appeal, enhanced the sentence also, by awarding a fine of Rs. 10,000, amounts to a clear travesty of justice, and is in complete violation of the provisions of law. Under Section 386 (b) (iii) Cr. P. C. , there is a clear bar on enhancement of sentence in an appeal from conviction. Section 386 (b) (iii) Cr. P. C. , which pertains to an appeal from conviction, reads as follows: "with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same". Accordingly, this part of the order, awarding an additional fine of Rs. 10,000, needs to be set aside straight away. 3. Although, the record of this case has not been received, however, the learned counsel for the applicant states that he is not raising any objection to the non-receipt of the record for the decision of this case and will be satisfied if the decision is accorded on the basis of the two judgments of the Courts below. He also states that basically, he is pressing this criminal revision only on the question of sentence and pleads for being released on probation instead of being accorded a substantive sentence. 4. The facts of this case were that the applicant, Bishan Swaroop, who was the cousin brother of Smt. Meera Devi, was taking her from Shahjahanpur to Allahganj on 25-4-1982. Smt. Meera Devi was travelling alongwith her trunk, which contained jewellery, clothes etc. The applicant and Smt. Meera Devi changed the bus at Jalalabad and, thereafter, they reached Allahganj bus station at about 3. 00 p. m. on 25-4-1982. Smt. Meera Devi was travelling alongwith her trunk, which contained jewellery, clothes etc. The applicant and Smt. Meera Devi changed the bus at Jalalabad and, thereafter, they reached Allahganj bus station at about 3. 00 p. m. on 25-4-1982. At the bus station, the applicant is said to have told Smt. Meera Devi to go home alone and to send back her servant to collect her luggage. The servant of Smt. Meera Devi went to the bus station, but returned back reporting that the applicant was not present there. Thereafter, the informant, Arvind Kumar Misra, the brother of Smt. Meera Devi, came to the market place in search of the applicant, Bishan Swaroop, who was sitting in the shop of his son, Chandra Shekhar. But, no satisfactory answer was said to have been given by the applicant for having left the bus station. The informant, thereafter, brought back the box and other luggage of Smt. Meera Devi to his house. When Smt. Meera Devi opened the trunk with her keys in the house, it was found that her jewellery, which was contained in three boxes in the trunk, was missing. The informant is said to have gone back to meet the applicant and demanded the jewellery of Smt. Meera Devi, but on his failure to return the same, a report was lodged at the police station against the applicant and his son, and later, charges were framed against the applicant under Section 406 I. P. C. , and against Chandra Shekhar, under Section 440 I. P. C. Chandra Shekhar was subsequently acquitted by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Shahjahanpur. However, the applicant was convicted as above. 5. In the absence of the record, it has become difficult for me to decide this case on merits. However, some features appear very striking in this case, which would give rise to some doubts about the credibility of the prosecution story. If, indeed, the applicant had removed the jewellery from the boxes in the trunk of Smt. Meera Devi, would he have remained present alongwith the trunk at the shop of his son, Chandra Shekhar. Secondly, it is the prosecution case that the bus was changed at two or three places on the way from Shahjahanpur to Allahganj and tampering at those points with the luggage can also not be ruled out. Secondly, it is the prosecution case that the bus was changed at two or three places on the way from Shahjahanpur to Allahganj and tampering at those points with the luggage can also not be ruled out. Furthermore, inspite of the police case being registered against the applicant, no jewellery etc. , have been recovered from the applicant or the acquitted co-accused, Chandra Shekhar. 6. In the light of all these circumstances, and as a period of about 22 years has elapsed since the incident occurred, and the applicant is not said to have been involved in any criminal offence during this period, I think it would be in the interest of justice if instead of being awarded a substantive sentence under Section 406 IPC, the applicant is released on probation under the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act, 1938. In this connection Section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if in a case an accused person could have been dealt with under Section 360 Cr. P. C. or under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, but the Court has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so. In U. P. in view of the newly added clause 484 (2) (e) which has been inserted by U. P. Act 16 of 1976, although Section 360 Cr. P. C. shall not apply to U. P. , however the provisions of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act, 1938 are required to be read in Section 361 Cr. P. C. in place of Section 360 Cr. P. C. when the latter provision is mentioned in Section 361 Cr. P. C. The mandatory character of Section 361 (and 360) Cr. P. C. and the requirement to give special reasons for not giving the benefit of Section 360 Cr. P. C. when the Court could have done so, because the object of sentencing is reformation and rehabilitation and not merely deterrence has also been emphasized by the apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 225; Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, (2001) 10 SCC 477 and Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 245 . In the case at hand no reasons whatsoever have been given by the Courts below for denying the accused the benefit of Section 360 Cr. In the case at hand no reasons whatsoever have been given by the Courts below for denying the accused the benefit of Section 360 Cr. P. C. or the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act, particularly as the trial Court in its judgment dated 8-6-84 has even recorded a finding that the accused looks like an old person. 7. As the offence under Section 406 IPC is not punishable with death or being imprisonment for life, and there is no bar to the application of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act to the case of the applicant, I direct that instead of the applicant required at once to undergo his sentence, he should be released on probation of good conduct, on his entering into a bond to the satisfaction of the CJM, Shahjahanpur, to appear and receive sentence when called upon for a period of two years under Section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act, 1938. The applicant is also directed to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. With this modification the Revision is finally disposed off. Revision partly allowed. .