The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and the court's discretion to extend the benefit of probation based on the nature of the offences and the absence of criminal antecedents.

JUDGMENT

1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2012 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 2013.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr., P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.10.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.51/2013, whereby the judgment dated 07.09.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.508/12 giving benefit of doubt to the petitioner under Section 354 IPC and convicting him for offence punishable under Sections 394, 341 & 323 IPC was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as follows :- 394 IPC : 03 year's RI and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 01 month's additional imprisonment.

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

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the sentence so awarded to revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon'ble Court on 21.02.2014 vide S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No.331/2013 and the petitioner is on bail.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already undergone sentence of 01 year, 03 months and 29 days, out of the total three year's RI awarded to him.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-petitioner may be granted benefit under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as he has no previous criminal antecedents.

"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 the petition 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-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 v. 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 usef