Faiyaz Vs. the State of Rajasthan

.....was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - are maintained, but instead of sentencing the appellant faiyaz to any imprisonment, it is directed that the appellant faiyaz be released on probation of good conduct for six months on his furnishing the personal and surety bonds in the sum of rs. 2000/- to the satisfaction of the learned sessions judge, pratabgarh, with the stipulation that during the period of six months, he shall keep peace and be of good behavior.b.r. arora, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated january 13,1980, passed by the sessions judge, pratabgarh, convicting the appellant under sections 353 and 186, i.p.c.3643321863531863531863. the learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the conviction of the appellant under sections 353 and 186 i.p.c. and submits that the learned lower court has committed an error in not giving the benefit of probation to the accused-appellant. the learned public prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned lower court.4. i have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.5. as the matter relates to the year 1978 and more than twelve years have elapsed; the accused is neither a previous convict nor is any case pending against him and he is repenting over his act, hence, in these circumstances, i think it proper that the ends of justice would meet if the appellant is given the benefit of probation.6. in the result, the appeal is partly allowed. the conviction of the appellant under sections 353 and 186 i.p.c. are maintained, but instead of sentencing the appellant faiyaz to any imprisonment, it is directed that the appellant faiyaz be released on probation of good conduct for six months on his furnishing the personal and surety bonds in the sum of rs. 2000/- to the satisfaction of the learned sessions judge, pratabgarh, with the stipulation that during the period of six months, he shall keep peace and be of good behavior.