JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1. The instant revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.02.2026, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2018 and order on quantum of sentence dated 17.03.2018, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as 'learned trial Court'), arising out of FIR No. 739 dated 15.11.2012, registered under Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC, at Police Station City Thanesar, whereby the petitioner was held guilty for the commission of offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

2. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not challenging the sentence and confines his prayer that the revision petition be considered for extending the benefit of probation to the petitioner considering prolonged trial and no criminal antecedents post conviction in the present FIR.

3. Since the learned counsel is not challenging the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below on its merit and seeking benefit of probation, the sole consideration before this Court is as to whether the prayer made by the petitioner for extending benefit of probation can be accepted or not?

4. Before proceeding to consider the prayer made by the petitioner for release of the accused on probation, it is apposite to refer to the legal position on the subject. The aims and objectives of the Probation of Offenders Act were authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 2522. Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of the Probation Act had held as under:-

"The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on probation or after due admonition and for matters connected therewith. The object of the Act is to prevent the conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals of mature age in case the youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail. The above object is in consequence with the present trend in the field of penology, according to which effort should be made to bring about correction and reformation of the individual offenders and not to resort to retributive justice. Modem criminal jurisprudence recognizes that no one is a born criminal and that a good many crimes are the product of socio- economic milieu. Although not much can be done for hardened criminals, considerable stress has been laid on bringing about reform of young offenders not guilty of very serious offences and of preventing their association with hardened criminals."

5. Reliance can also be placed upon Isher Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1295 and Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas and others, 1974 AIR (SC) 1818, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken the similar view. Relevant paragraph of Arvind Mohan Sinha's case (supra) reads 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. A jail term should normally be enough to wipe out the stain of guilt but the sentence which the society passes on convicts is relenless. The ignominy commonly associated with a jail term and the social stigma which attached to convicts often render the remedy worse than the disease and the year purposes of punishment stands in the danger of being frustrated. 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 str