Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order of Shri Yashpal Lukadia, the then 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Agra dated 07.06.1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1995 dismissing the appeal of the revisionist Hakim Singh preferred from a judgment and order of Sri S.C. Garg, the then IXth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra dated 22.07.1995 convicting the revisionist under Section 332 IPC and sentencing him to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and further convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 147 IPC, wherefor a sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment has been awarded, in addition to which fine of Rs. 200/- has been imposed. Both sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.06.1986 at about 6:00 in the evening hours the complainant Gautam Singh, a forest guard along with his companion Bharat Singh Pal, another forest guard were on their beat in the Kunwer Khera Forest Block when they discovered stumps of trees that had been recently cut away. Both the forest guards reached fields located between Mungawali Forest Block and Kunwar Khera, where pumping sets to irrigate fields are located. There they found that two brick-worked furnaces/ovens were being set up. The forest guards found that near one of the contraptions wood from the fallen trees in the forest was lying stocked (presumably to fire the furnaces/ovens). Both the forest guards inquired the name of persons present there who identified themselves as Bhagwan Singh, Ram Sanehi, Hakim Singh, Janak Singh and Rajole. The complainant guards repeatedly asked these men as to why they had cut away forest wood which immediately lead to a quarrel with the guards. The forest guards attempted to take into possession the forest wood from these natives of the village including the revisionist, whereupon the guards were assaulted with Lathis in consequence of which the complainant-forest guard suffered head injuries. It is alleged that the complainant ran for his life. His bicycle bearing Frame No. RMI636159 and a HMT watch were left behind at the place of occurrence.

3. The case of the prosecution further is that complainant attempted to inform his immediate administrative superior but he was not available at station. Therefore, on the following day i.e. 15.06.1986 a written first information report bearing Ex. Ka-1 was handed over at the police station concerned on the basis of which a chik FIR Ex. Ka-2 came to be registered giving rise to case crime no. 20 of 1986, under Sections 147/132 IPC, P.S. Khera Rathore, District Agra.

4. After investigation the police submitted a charge sheet against all the accused. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance tried all the accused including the revisionist, convicting and sentencing them in the manner already detailed. The conviction and sentence of the revisionist have been affirmed in appeal leading him to prefer the instant revision.

5. The revision was admitted to hearing only on the question of sentence and, therefore, a limited rule came to be issued by this Court confined to the sentence alone vide order dated 26.06.1996. Thus, the revision is being heard limited to the question of sentence. This revision has come up for hearing more than 21 years after it was admitted.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Pankaj Dwivedi has strongly urged that it is a case where the revisionist should be admitted to the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He has submitted that the revisionist is now aged about 72 years. He has no criminal history and the sentence awarded is six months R.I. on each count with a fine of Rs. 200/-. Sri Dwivedi submits that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, who as already said has no criminal history, it is a fit case to release