JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed, impugned judgment dated 15.11.97 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur in sessions Case No. 53/96 (301/96 old) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appellant may be acquitted in this case.”

2. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1996 and the present appeal has been pending since 1997.

3. Vide impugned judgment dated 15.11.1997 the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 53/96 (Old 301/96) convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 year' R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default in payment of which he was to further undergo three month' Rigorous imprisonment.

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

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide the order dated 05.12.1997 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 493/1997 and thus, he is on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-appellant 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 the appeal and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the learned court below, the accused-appellant 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, 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 others similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of crime. But the novice who strays into the path of crime ought, in the interest of society, be treated as being socially sick. Crimes are not always rooted in criminal tendencies and their origin may lie in psychological factors induced by hunger, want and poverty. The Pr