JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred by Nagsingh, accused-petitioner against the judgment dated February 19, 1980 passed by Sessions Judge, Jalore. The conviction of the accused-petitioner under sections 279,304 A of the Indian Penal Code and 89 read with 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as the sentences awarded thereunder have been affirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore. 2. It was submitted by Mr. Arora, learned counsel for accused-petitioner that there is the evidence of Hastimal P. W. 1 a solitary witness and it has been wrongly relied upon. I have gone through the statement of P. W. 1 Hastimal and through the judgment of the two courts below. The conclusion arrived at of the evidence on the record by the courts do not appear to be unreasonable and the view taken by the court regarding the testimony of P. W. 1 Hastimal is reasonably possible. The first information report of the incident was lodged within 15 minutes. There appears no reason to interfere in the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, so far as the merits are concerned. 3. The other submission of the learned counsel for accused-petitioner is that the courts have not assigned any special reason as to why the accused is not entitle to the benefit of the Provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or of section 360 Cr. P. C. 4. A perusal of section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will show that if the case of the accused is of such a nature, which could be dealt with either under section 360, Cr.P.C, or under provision of Probation of Offenders Act, then if the court does not do so more, it must assign "special reasons" in its judgment. 5. A perusal of the judgment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore will show that they have not dealt with this aspect of the matter. The occurrence took place in 1973 and the accused was charged with an offence under section 304 A. I.P.C.. which is punishable with imprisonment for a term upto 2 years and as such could be dealt with under the provision of section 360, Cr.P.C. or under the Probation of Offenders Act. The occurrence took place in 1973 and the accused was charged with an offence under section 304 A. I.P.C.. which is punishable with imprisonment for a term upto 2 years and as such could be dealt with under the provision of section 360, Cr.P.C. or under the Probation of Offenders Act. or Section 361 is mandatory to the extent that if the case of the accused can be dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or section 360 Cr.P.C. the court must apply its mind as to whether to deal with the case under these provisions or not. If it does not deal with the case as stated earlier, it must assign "special reasons" in the judgment. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and more so, the fact that the incident took place in the year 1973, it is a fit case, which should be dealt with under section 360, Cr. P. C. 7. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily so far as merits are concerned, but the case is dealt with under section 360, Cr.P.C. and it is hereby directed that the accused be released on probation of good conduct provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore for 1 years' to appear in the said court, when called upon during this period and to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Two months time is allowed to the accused to furnish the bond in the trial Court.Revision Dismissed Summarily on Merits. *******