In determining whether to grant probation, the court should consider factors such as the character and antecedents of the petitioner, the nature of the offence, and the agony of a prolonged trial.

P. K. Jam, J.

1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated January 8, 1996, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 332/ 506, I. P. C. recorded by Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, by judgment order dated 5.1.1994, have been confirmed. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Sec.332, Indian Penal Code. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200.00 , or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Sec.506, Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The facts giving rise -to this revision are that on 9.2.1987, Shri Subhash Mahajan, Incharge Tehbazari, along with Kamal Kishore, Tehbazari Inspector, 5 Tehbazari Collectors and 5 Beldars including Anant Ram (PW-1) and Raj Kumar (PW-2) had gone in the municipal area in their official vehicle being driven by one Tarsem Lal. After performing their official duties, in different localities, they reached the shop of Ram Parkash, the father of the petitioner, situated in Rainak Bazar, Jalandhar, at about 12:15 p. m. Some Karyana goods were lying outside the shop on the municipal land. Inspector Kamal Kishore directed the Collectors and Beldars to remove the goods. On it Ram Prakash and the petitioner put resistance and obstructed the removal of goods and prevented the municipal staff from performing their duties. They also gave fist and lathi blows to Anant Kumar and Raj Kumar Beldars. Anant Kumar was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar; and was examined by the doctor also. The petitioner and his father also threatened that in case their goods were removed again, they would see to it that their lives would not be safe.

3. F. I. R. No.34 dated 9.2.1987 was registered at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet under sections 353/332/186/ 506 I. P. C. was filed against Ram Parkash and the petitioner. On 4.9.1987, a charge under sections 353/332/506, I. P. C. , was framed against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution could examine only five witnesses during a span of six years and ultimately the trial Court was forced to close the case of the prosecution on 7.5.1993. In their examination under sec. 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that they had been falsely implicated. Accepting the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and disbelieving the defence version, the trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced Ram Parkash and the petitioner for the offences under sections 332/506, I. P. C. Feeling aggrieved both the convicts challenged their conviction and sentence in appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. During the course of hearing, the appellants confined their case only to the question of probation. Ibis plea was accepted qua Ram Parkash only. Conviction and sentence of the petitioner was confirmed by the impugned judgment. Hence this revision.

5. Notice qua sentence was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

6. Shri R. S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate, while appearing on behalf of the petition, has argued that the allegations of the prosecution against the petitioner and his father are identical in nature, that the petitioner is also not a previous convict and that he has also undergone the agony of a long trial. It is, thus, contended that under the facts and circumstances of the case, he should not have been discriminated in the matter of sentence.

7. On the oth