Probation of Offenders Act age test turns on trial court sentencing date, and belated age claim failed.

Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was applied with reference to the accused's age on the date the trial court passed judgment and sentence, not the date of the offence. The Court preferred the existing interpretation of that provision and held that its protection was unavailable where the accused was not shown to be under twenty-one at the relevant time. A belated plea of age raised for the first time before the Supreme Court was also rejected because the record contained no credible, trustworthy evidence to support it. The conviction and sentence therefore remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 depends on the accused being below 21 years of age on the date of the trial court's judgment and sentence or on the date of commission of the offence; (ii) whether the accused could seek that benefit for the first time before the Supreme Court without credible and trustworthy evidence of age.

Issue (i): Whether the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 depends on the accused being below 21 years of age on the date of the trial court's judgment and sentence or on the date of commission of the offence.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 6 places a restriction on sentencing offenders under twenty-one years of age and requires the court to consider the circumstances of the case and record reasons if imprisonment is imposed. The reasoning adopted treated the point of time when the trial court deals with the offender as the relevant date for applying the provision. The earlier binding interpretation of the same provision was preferred over the analogy drawn from juvenile justice legislation, as the two enactments were held not to be in pari materia.

Conclusion: The relevant date for Section 6 is the date of the trial court's order of conviction and sentence, not the date of the offence; the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the provision.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused could seek that benefit for the first time before the Supreme Court without credible and trustworthy evidence of age.

Analysis: The claim of age was not raised before the trial court or the High Court, and the material relied on was not part of the earlier record. The certificate produced at the appellate stage was treated as insufficiently reliable, and the record did not furnish credible evidence showing that the appellant was under twenty-one years of age at the relevant time. The court therefore declined to entertain the plea as a fresh factual assertion at the highest appellate stage.

Conclusion: The age-based claim could not be entertained for the first time in the Supreme Court in the absence of credible evidence.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were left undisturbed because the statutory protection under Section 6 was inapplicable on the relevant date and the factual foundation for age-based relief was not satisfactorily established.

Ratio Decidendi: For applying Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the decisive age is that of the accused when the trial court convicts and sentences him, and the benefit cannot be granted on the basis of a belated plea unsupported by credible evidence.

---