JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of Sunder Dass and Naraindass, the appellant in S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 1973, for being given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2. Sundcrdass was convicted of the offence under Section 148 and 324 I. P. C. and Naraindass was convicted under Section 147 and 323 I. P. C. Sunderdass was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year whereas Naraindass was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months. This court by its order dated 28th July, 1978, taking into consideration the fact that the incident happened in May, 1972 and the accused had undergone imprisonment for 47 days, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and also set aside the sentence of fine imposed on the accused. 3. In this petition it has been submitted that petitioner Sunderdass is in the employment of Indian Railways and is posted as a peon in the telegraphic section at Jodhpur whereas Narain is employed with the University of Jodhpur as a clerk at Jodhpur. It is submitted that if the sentence of imprisonment is maintained against the petitioners they would lose there jobs and that this fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the appeal on 28th July, 1978. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that ends of justice would be served if the sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioners is set aside and they are given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. 4. The petitioners have approached this court with an unusual request. But the circumstances are also unusual. When this court, by its order dated July 28, 1978, reduced the sentence passed against the petitioners to the period already undergone it had proceeded on the basis of that imprisonment of the petitioners for a period of 47 days was a sufficient punishment for their conduct and that the petitioners should not be penalised any further. Now we find that the effect of the order of this court upholding the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioners, who are Government Servant, will be removed from service. Now we find that the effect of the order of this court upholding the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioners, who are Government Servant, will be removed from service. The result will be that the petitioners and the members of their family will have to suffer grave economic hardship, arising from unemployment of the petitioners, which, in the present days, is even worse than a term of imprisonment. In order to secure the ends of justice it is necessary that the order dated July 28, 1978 be suitably modified so that the consequences referred to above are averted. This can be achieved if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is set aside and they are given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. In this context it may be observed that a report relating to the character and the physical and mental condition of the petitioners has been obtained from the Probation Officer, Jodhpur. From the said report it appears that the incident took place on account of some family quarrel between relatives and that otherwise the conduct and behaviour of the accused persons is beyond reproach. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of the justice would be served, if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is set aside and they are given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. 6. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the order passed by this Court on 28th July, 1978 in S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 1973 is modified to the extent that sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioners is set aside and it is directed that each of the petitioners will furnish, within a period of one month, a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties for Rs. 5,000/- each to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of one year.Petition allowed. *******