JUDGMENT 1. - The accused Ghanshyam has been committed under Section 436 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 2 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. It is not necessary to give the facts in detail as they are contained in the judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. Suffice to say that the incident took place on 25-6-74 at about 11 A.M. in villages Jirota The accused committed mischief by fire to the `Chapper' belonging to Prahlad P.W. 11. The learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the evidence of prosecution witnesses, namely, Prabhu s/o Badri. P.W. 10, Mst. Roshan, P.W. 8 and Smt. Durga, P.W. 9, has held that the case against the accused is proved. It is not disputed here, as in the trial court, that the `chappar' belonging to P.W. 11 Prabhu was set on fire and reduced to ashes. Though Mr. Tiku Learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that the evidence of the eye witnesses named above that they saw the accused setting fire to the `Chapper' of Prabhu P.W. 11 should not be relied upon but I see no reason to disbelieve the witnesses. I am in agreement with the trial court that the accused appellant set fire to`Chappar'of Prabhu P.W. 11 But the question is whether it is an offence u/s 435 I P.C. as held by the trial court or only an offence under S. 426 I.P C. Neither in the F.I.R. nor in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it has been stated that the property i.e. `Chappar' of Prabhu which was destroyed in the fire was of the value of Rs.1000/- or more. There is material on the record that the day of the occurrence a new `Chapper'had been made at 11 A.M. and it was set on fire on the same at about 11 or 11.30 A.M. The trial court has held `Chappar'I was not in the use for custody of the property. In the absence of any material about the value of property which is a matter of evidence and not of inference, it cannot be said that the value of `Chappar' was Rs. 1000/- or more. 3. Learned trial court has inferred that the value of the property destroyed by the fire was Rs. In the absence of any material about the value of property which is a matter of evidence and not of inference, it cannot be said that the value of `Chappar' was Rs. 1000/- or more. 3. Learned trial court has inferred that the value of the property destroyed by the fire was Rs. 1000/- or more, but that inference is not the only inference possible. The offence under Section 435 I.P.C can only be made out in case the value of the property destroyed amounts to Rs.1000/- or upwards and therefore, the only offence under Section 426 IPC is made out- The occurrence took place in the year 1974 i.e. about 8 years ago and the `Chappar' was standing on land which had been purchased by the accused Ghan Shyam as admitted by P.W. 10 Prabhp s/o Badri. 4. Thus the offence u/s 426 I.P C. is such which in view of the mandate of the Legislature contained in Section 361 Cr. P.C., can be dealt with under the provisions of the Probation's of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 Cr. P.C. 5. I, therefore, partly allow this appeal, acquit the accused u/s 435 IPC but convict him u/s 426 IPC. But in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of sentencing accused at once to any punishment, I direct that the accused be released on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 2, 000/- and a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of a good behaviour. 6. The bond should be furnished in the lower court within a period of three months.A ppeal Partly Allowed. *******