JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The eight opposite parties were convicted u/s 143/504, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for a period of fifteen days each under each count; the sentences to run concurrently. The learned Magistrate released all of them u/s 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the ?Act?), on their executing a bond with one surety for Rs. 1,000/- each. The illegality committed by the learned Magistrate was that if he wanted to release the accused persons on probation he should have merely convicted but should not have sentenced them. 2. On issue of notice though the accused persons excepting accused Nos. 3 and 5 appeared, the legality of the conviction has not been challenged before me. 3. The short facts are that the complainant with another friend of his and the accused persons are workers in Deulabeda colliery of Talcher. The complainant?s case is that on 9-6-1971 at a bout 2 p.m. he was collecting signatures of other workers on a petition addressed to the Manager of the colliery for redress of the grievances of the workers near the pit top officers of that colliery. At that time all the accused persons surrounded him and a bused him in filthy language saying Sala, Madrnchoda, Dalal, Beham etc." Accused Puma Naik snatched away the petition from the hand of the complainant. At about 12 midnight complainant returned to his residence from duty. At that time all the accused persons being armed with lathis surrounded the quarters of the complainant abused him and did not allow him to come out. When other people came to his rescue at about 4 a.m. the accused persons left the place. The defence is one of alibi of all the accused persons. 4. Three witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence all speaking of alibi of each of the accused persons. The defence version was not accepted by the learned Magistrate and he accepted the prosecution story on charges under Sections 143 and 504, Indian Penal Code. He acquitted them of the charge u/s 342. Indian Penal Code. After having gone through the evidence on record I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate recorded the correct finding. 5. The accused persons came in a body and some of them were armed. He acquitted them of the charge u/s 342. Indian Penal Code. After having gone through the evidence on record I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate recorded the correct finding. 5. The accused persons came in a body and some of them were armed. They were violent in their behaviour. The learned Magistrate did not call for any report from the Probation Officer which is mandatory u/s 4(2) of the Act. In the absence of such a report the accused persons should not have been released on probation. Having regard to the circumstances of the case that the accused persons came in a body, surrounded the complainant and scolded him in filthy language I am not satisfied that this is a fit case in which they should be released on probation u/s 4(1) of the Act and they cannot be so released in the absence of a report from the Probation Officer. I accordingly set aside the order of the learned Magistrate releasing them on probation. 6. The sentence of fifteen days? imprisonment in the circumstances of the case does not appear to be heavy. In the result, the order of conviction and sentence passed on the accused persons is maintained. The criminal revision is allowed as indicated above. Final Result : Allowed