JUDGMENT :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1995 and the present revision petition has been pending since 2001.

3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 17.05.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Criminal Appeal No.01/2001 whereby the judgment dated 12.12.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaisalmer in Criminal Original Case No.432/1996 convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 409 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further one month’s S.I. Vide the impugned judgment dated 17.05.2001 though the judgment of learned trial court to the extent of Section 409 of IPC was affirmed, the same was modified to the extent that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo one year’s S.I. and a fine of Rs.2000/-in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further one month’s S.I. The offence(s) under Section(s) 409 IPC, with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

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

5. 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 28.05.2001, and thus, he is on bail.

6. 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)... ”

7. 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.

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

9. In Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC 222, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under :-

“The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative