JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1998 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 2002.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.08.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2001, whereby the judgment dated 30.04.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol, District Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 377/98, convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Section 408 IPC and was sentenced to undergo two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further three months' R.I.

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

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 19.08.2002 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 143/2002, thus, he is on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-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 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 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 Probation of Offenders act recognises the importance of enviro