1. The question for consideration is that after recording conviction, whether trial court without considering the grant or denial of the benefit under Section 562 Cr. P. C. could sentence the accused to any punishment. 2. According to learned counsel for appellant Section 562 Cr. P. C. has an object of reformation. Non-consideration of grant of probation will defeat the object and the accused will loose the chance of reformation by being incarcerated in prison. Learned trial court has not considered the grant or denial of the benefit under Section 562 Cr. P. C., therefore, sentence of punishment awarded is liable to be set aside. In support of this contention, relied on the judgment Eliamma & anr v. State of Karnataka reported in 2009(1) Crimes 355 (SC). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant (respondent) contended that the appellant(accused) after having been convicted was required to file an applica­tion so as to seek benefit of Section 562 Cr. P. C., further added that the judgment as relied by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no help to the appellant because Section 562 Cr. P. C (State Code) corresponds to Section 360 Cr. P. C (Central Code). In the Central Code there is one more provision i.e. Section 361 and the conjoint reading of Section 360 and 361 Cr. P. C enjoins upon recording of reasons for not according benefit under Section 360. The judgment as referred is based on conjoint reading of both Section 360 and 361 Cr. P. C (Central) so is not applicable to the present case. 4. Section 562 Cr. P. C. has a laudable object of reformation and to prevent accused from becoming a hardened criminal by being incarcerated in prison. Grant or denial of benefit is discretionary but same is not unfettered. Discretion has to be exercised in a manner which will not render the object of the beneficial provision as illogical. Even though provision of 361 as contained in Central Code is not available in the State Code but keeping in view scheme and object of Section 562 Cr. P. C (State Code), after recording conviction it becomes mandatory for the Court to consider the grant or denial of the benefit of Section 562 Cr. P. C, only in the cases of accused who are covered by the Section. P. C (State Code), after recording conviction it becomes mandatory for the Court to consider the grant or denial of the benefit of Section 562 Cr. P. C, only in the cases of accused who are covered by the Section. In the process age, character, antecedents of the offender, the circumstances in which offence is committed and previous conviction, if any, has to be looked into. 5. The underlying object is to give protection to the accused from becoming professional criminal and to give the benefit to the persons who are first offenders so that they get chance of reformation and are rehabilitated. The Section is not to be applied indiscriminately but non-Consideration thereof would warrant setting aside of the sentence of imprisonment awarded. 6. Basically appellant (accused) along with other accused were tried for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302,447,148,149 RFC and vide judgment dated 29.8.2003 accused except appellant were acquitted of all charges whereas appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part-II RPC and then while considering the question of quantum of sentence, vide order dated 4.9.2003 has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and six months and fine of Rs.1500. 7. After recording conviction and while hearing the matter on the question of quantum of sentence, grant of the benefit under Section 562 Cr. P. C. has been considered and the learned trial judge has in the said order recorded as under: "As regards defence counsel's plea regarding release of offender on proba­tion, I feel same cannot be accepted because in view of the nature of offence committed, particularly in the circumstances presently prevalent around this concession cannot be given unless there are very strong reasons to the contrary which I do not find in the instant case." 8. In the afore-stated circumstances, the submission as was made on 20.4.2011 and also the submissions as made while arguing the case on such question, are found totally misplaced. 9. The appeal has to be heard and in case Court reaches to the conclusion of maintaining conviction, then it has to be considered as to whether denial of benefit of Section 562 Cr. P.C by the trial court is justified or not. 10. Let the main appeal be listed before the Bench having roster. The matter be not treated as part heard.