Cr.R.No.1021 of 2011 13.12.2011. Shri R.N.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri L.L.Sharma, Govt.Advocate for respondent-State. With consent arguments heard on merits. Petitioner has preferred this revision aggrieved by the order of the first appellate Court in having dismissed his appeal against his conviction under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and the order of sentence directing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- on each count respectively and in default of fine to further undergo S.I.for two months on each count. Petitioner is aged about 19 years. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 457 of IPC and for the same period for offence under Section 380 of IPC. He has also been directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months for both the offence separately. The petitioner was not arrested from the spot, but was arrested subsequently and on the basis of the disclosure stated to have been made by him has not been identified yet the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. His appeal has been dismissed. The petitioner submits that he is a first offender and is not facing any other criminal case. Considering his age he ought to have been given benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. There is nothing in the order of the trial Court as to how benefit of probation has not been granted to the petitioner. The appellate Court has also not gone into this aspect of the matter. Infact, the entire judgment of the Court is based upon a presumption raised against the petitioner under Section 114 of the Evidence Act to the effect that in the absence of any explanation given by the petitioner with regard to recovery of stolen articles, he would have been deemed to be the person who committed the crime. Taking into consideration the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and looking to his age, the petitioner is entitled to be released on probation. He has already undergone sentence for a period of 92 days. He shall be released on probation subject to his furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each for a period of two years to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. It is made clear that if the petitioner is of good conduct in this period, he would not be required to undergo sentence any further. If he commits any offence in this period, he will have to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. C.C.as per rules. ( M. C. GARG ) JUDGE RJ/