The grant of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act is a matter of judicial discretion, and the court must consider various factors, including the age of the offender, the nature of the offense, the offender's criminal history, and the likelihood of rehabilitation.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. dated 5-7-1995. The prosecution challenged Rajesh alias Pappu for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code on the facts that on 21-6-1989 at about 9.00 P.M. Dalip Singh, father of Jagriti, was coming towards his house after answering the call of nature in village Manesar. On the way the petitioner stopped him and abused hint, which attracted his daughter Jagriti towards the scene. She saw the petitioner stopping Dalip Singh while being armed with Kasola and was asking him to withdraw the suits which were pending between the parties. Jagriti made noise for help upon which the petitioner hit her with Kasola on her head and also assaulted her on her right hand resulting an injury to the finger of the right-hand. On these facts FIR No. 463 dated 22-6-1989 was registered under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. The petitioner was sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon, to face trial for the said offences.

2. The petitioner was charge-sheeted vide order dated 29-8-1989. Having pleaded not guilty, the petitioner was put to face trial. The learned Magistrate upon completion of the trial and recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. stating that he way falsely implicated, disbelieved the version of the accused. However, the petitioner led no evidence in support of his statement.

3. On the basis of the prosecution evidence which had examined three witnesses. the trial Court held the petitioner to be guilty; convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under the offence under Section 324 IPC. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 323 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo further imprisonment for one month.

4. This judgement/order of the learned Magistrate was assailed in appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Gurgaon, who confirmed the same vide his order dated 5-7-1995. It is this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which is assailed before this Court in this revision.

5. At the time of admission the counsel for the petitioner had conceded that he had no case on merit and wanted to argue only on the question of grant of probation to the petitioner. As such vide order dated 17-8-1995 notice was issued by the Court limited for the grant of probation to the petitioner. Thus, in no way, disturbing the decisions of the Courts below on merits. I propose to discuss the question limited to the plea of probation raised before this Court.

6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was less than 16 years of age at the time of commission of the offence and is now 22 years old. He has already faced the trial for the last more than 7 years. The petitioner has also undergone two months imprisonment awarded to him by the Courts below and has paid the fine. The counsel further submitted that it was at the spur of the moment that the petitioner caused simple injury to the complainant Jagriti and he had no intention to commit any offence. The counsel further argued that the Courts below have given no reason for declining to release the petitioner on probation and did not even call for the report from the Probationary Officer. The learned Magistrate only noticed one fact on these arguments saying that he was not inclined to release the accused on probation as he had given injury to the girl of tender age on the vital part of her body. The same reasoning was adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and he also declined the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused. It is important to note here that in the meanwhile when the petitioner was on bail he also got married. He is also not a previous convict and there is no material on recorded to hold that he cannot reform himself and become a better citi