IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.642 of 2010 BINOD PRASAD, SON OF LATE PREMAN MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAILAO POLICE STATION SILAO DISTRICT NALANDA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---------- 04. 01.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the courts below while convicting and maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section-363 of the Indian Penal Code has not granted him the benefit of the provisions contained in the Probation of Offenders Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Sections-360, 361 Cr.P.C., although, it is very much evident from the materials on record that petitioner was never convicted for any offence earlier and present conviction is his first conviction. 3. Having perused the judgment of the courts below, I am satisfied that while passing the two judgments, the courts below have not considered and granted petitioner the benefit of the Act and Sections-360, 361 Cr.P.C., which is mandatory in nature. In appreciation of the provisions of the Act and Sections-360, 361 Cr.P.C., I modify the sentence imposed on the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months. It goes without saying that while calculating the period of eight months the authorities will count the period from the date of initial custody already undergone by the petitioner. 4. With the aforesaid modification in sentence this criminal revision application is dismissed. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.) 2