JUDGMENT 1. - Devilal petitioner was found guilty and was convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 447 I.P.C. by the learned Munsiff Magistrate Bundi and instead of sentencing him to any punishment he was released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The complainant preferred an appeal for awarding substantive sentence to the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, who vide her judgment dated 28-9-1972 accepted the appeal and the order as to the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act was set aside and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for offences under Sections 323 and 447 I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for five days. 2. It is against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentencing the petitioner as mentioned above that he has preferred this revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The facts of the case need not be set out in detail as the facts leading to the conviction of the petitioner have not been disputed. It has been contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acted wrongly and improperly in interfering with the discretion, in the matter of punishment, exercised by the trial court, and unless it is grossly inadequate, no interference should be made in appeal or revision. The latest trend in penology is that an opportunity should be given for first offender to correct himself. Simply because the petitioner happens to be a Constable in the Police department does not mean that he should be deprived to the benefits which are available to the ordinary citizen particularly when the act complained of was committed in his personal capacity and not in the abuse of his office as Constable. It is further submitted that the alleged occurrence is of 5-4-1969 i. e., more than 71/2 years old and it took place between the relations of the petitioner. It is therefore not proper to send the petitioner to imprisonment after such a long time. 5. It is further submitted that the alleged occurrence is of 5-4-1969 i. e., more than 71/2 years old and it took place between the relations of the petitioner. It is therefore not proper to send the petitioner to imprisonment after such a long time. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor in that the petitioner was a police constable and he should have behaved in a more responsible manner than was expected from an ordinary citizen. They, therefore, contended that the sentence of imprisonment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge should be maintained. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that the offence was not committed in the garb of his official capacity but a simple `Marpit' ensued in his private capacity and that the incident is about 71/2 years old, it will not serve any purpose if the petitioner is now asked to go for imprisonment for a period of 15 days particularly when he was given the. benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act by the Magistrate and there was no compelling circumstance for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to have interfered with the matter of discretion, regarding the sentence exercised by the learned trial court. 7. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for five days for the offences under sections 323 and 447 I.P.C. is set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate giving the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner is restored. Find, if paid, be refunded to the petitioner. *******