JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

CRLR No. 360/2001:

Ms. Yogita Mohanani, after making submissions for some time, does not want to press this revision, which is against acquittal of non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 from offences under Sections 147, 323, 323/149, 325, 325/149 I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 483/97.

Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed as not pressed.

CRLA No. 529/2001

1. The present appeal is against conviction of accused-Banshi Lal and Jagdish.

Counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the incident is of the year 1997 and there were cross-cases, therefore, the accused-appellants be granted benefit under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act as they have not other criminal antecedents.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court will be pleased to send for the record of the lower court, peruse the same and after perusal, quash the conviction/sentences passed against the appellants, acquit them or pass any other orders that his Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.”

3. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1997 and the present appeal has been pending since 2001.

4. Vide impugned judgment dated 18.08.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 06/01 convicted accused-appellant Jagdish under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and was sentenced to undergo six months’ R.I. for each and accused-appellant-Bansilal for the offences under Sections 307, 324 and 341 IPC and was sentenced as under:

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the appellants do not have any criminal antecedents to their credit.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submits that the sentence awarded to accused-appellants was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide the order dated 27.08.2001 passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Application No. 471/2001 and thus, they are on bail.

7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-appellants 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)........”

8. On th