JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the Judgement of learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated September 20, 1977 by which learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction and sentence under section 452 and 323 I.P.C. awarded by the learned trial court to the accused petitioners. The learned trial court sentenced each of the accused petitioners under section 452 I.P.C. to undergo 9 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer 2 months rigorous imprisonment. Under section 323 I.P.C. the accused petitioners were sentenced to under go 3 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer one months Rigorous imprisonment. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The occurrence out of which this revision petition arises took place on April 3, 1972 in the after noon in village Jaisinghpura The bone of contention was Smt.Sohini, P.W. l sister of Ambalal, P.W.3. The case of the prosecution is that on April 3, 1972 in the after noon Smt. Sohini, P.W.l was taking bath inside her house. Both the accused persons along with Kishan and others came inside the house to take away Smt. Sohini by force. When resisted, it is alleged that Ambalal, P.W 2, Smt. Sohini, P.W.l and Smt. Kesar P.W.3, mother of Smt. Sohini were beaten. The accused petitioner is said to be armed with an axe Report of the incident was lodged. Injuries of Smt. Sohini, Kesher and Ambalal were examined. 3. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced accused persons as aforesaid. The accused petitioner Deva was convicted under section 380 I.P.C. but learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under count. 4. It is a finding of both the courts below that both the accused petitioners committed house trespass in the house of Ambalal, P.W.2 having made preparations to cause hurt. It is a further finding of the courts below that hurt was actually caused. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that taking facts as they are no offence under section 452 I.P.C is made out because as per case of the prosecution the dominant intention of the accused petitioners was to abduct Smt. Sohini and the intention of the accused petitioner was not to cause hurt. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that taking facts as they are no offence under section 452 I.P.C is made out because as per case of the prosecution the dominant intention of the accused petitioners was to abduct Smt. Sohini and the intention of the accused petitioner was not to cause hurt. lie submits that merely because three injuries were caused when resistance was put by Ambalal, P.W.2 and others in taking away of Smt. Sohini by the accused petitioners, it cannot be said that the accused petitioners committed house trespass having made preparations to cause hurt. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on Pirmohammed Kukaji v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1960 M.P. 24 and on Chatra v. State, AIR 1957 M.P. 217 . These authorities are not applicable to the facts of this case In this case the accused have been acquitted of an offence under section 366 I.P.C and have only been convicted under section 323 and 452 I.P.C. In the facts of this case and the material on record the accused persons were rightly convicted under section 452 and 323 I P.C. 6. Next contention of learned Advocate is that occurrence took place in the year 1972 i.e. 9 years ago. There has been a protracted trial. Accused persons are on bail. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment was pronounced in the year 1977, and is only of 9 month and accused petitioners have undergone sentence for some time. The case is such which can be dealt with under section 360 Cr.P.C. or under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ( Act no. 20 of 1958). The court has already given benefit to one of the accused persons because he was only of 21 years age. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that occurrence took place 9 years ago. I am of the opinion that the case of the accused persons should be dealt under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 8. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that occurrence took place 9 years ago. I am of the opinion that the case of the accused persons should be dealt under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 8. I will partly allow this revision petition, while maintaining conviction of the accused petitioners under section 452 and 323 I.P.C. instead of sentencing each of the accused petitioners at once to any punishment, it is hare by directed that each of the accused petitioners shall be released on probation of good conduct on each of them entering into a bond in a sum of Rs. 2000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year and in the meanwhile to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. I allow two months time to the accused petitioners to furnish the bonds in the trial court.Revision partly allowed. *******