JUDGMENT :

1. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1991 and the present revision petition has been pending since 2007.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.11.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Criminal Appeal No.08/03 whereby the judgment dated 24.02.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur in Criminal Case No.411/91 (249/98) convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year’s S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further three months’ S.I.; under Section 471 IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo six month’s S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further one month’s S.I. The offence under Section 420 IPC, as per the Indian Penal Code, is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years imprisonment; and imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 IPC, as prescribed under Section 465 IPC is the one, which may extend to two years.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the revisionist-petitioner do not have any criminal antecedents to his discredit.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide the order dated 27.11.2007 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.338/2007, and thus, he is on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner however, makes a limited prayer that the revisionist-petitioner may be granted benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

“4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.—

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.

(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.

(3)…

(4)…

(5)... ”

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the learned courts below, the revisionist-petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

8. In Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society. In recalcitrant cases, punishment has to be deterrent so that