Short Note : 1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, in Cr. A. No. 11 of 1976, whereby the conviction of the applicant for the offence under S. 454 IPC was upheld, although the sentence of one year's R.I. passed by the trial Court was reduced to a period of 6 months. 2. The next question for consideration is whether the sentence of imprisonment passed by the lower appellate Court should be confirmed. It may be pointed out that the applicant used to serve certain persons of the village to watch their fields. In the evidence of Kaniram (PW-5) Chowkidar, it has come to notice that when the applicant was interrogated as to why he entered into the house, he replied that he was dying of hunger. It is, therefore quite probable that the applicant entered into the house to satisfy his hunger probably by eating the ground nut. Thus, to my mind it is a fit case wherein the applicant should be given the benefit of S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant has got bad antecedents. 3. For the above reasons this revision is party allowed. The conviction of the applicant for the offence under S. 454 IPC is maintained, but instead of the jail sentence he is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on his entering into a bond with one surety for a sum of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime keep the peace and be of good behaviour. On furnishing the bond as directed above the bail bonds of the applicant shall stand cancelled. Revision allowed.