JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.9.1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in criminal appeal No. 22/82. The petitioner Brij Lal along with two others was prosecuted in respect of offence under sections 325 and 323 I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2. Hanumangarh. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the petitioner and the sothare rad in person had caused injuries to Smt. Rampyari and her daughter Vimla. It was accused that the petitioner was armed with a kassiya whereas the other accused Mapleged was armed with a gandasi and Surjaram was armed with a lathi. The petitioner said to have inflicted an injury on the left hand of Smt. Rampyari. The Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted under sections 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. The other accused persons were convicted under sections 323/34 and 323 I.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge on appeal set aside the conviction of the petitioner Brij Lal under section 325/34 and the conviction of accused Sarjarm under section 325/34 and 323 I.P.C. The conviction of accused Manphool under section 323 I.P.C. was maintained but his conviction under sections 325/34 I.P.C, was set aside. The sentence imposed on the petitioner in respect of offence under section 325 I.P.C. has been maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge have aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence in respect of offence under Section 325 I.P.C. the petitioner has filed this revision petition. 3. I have heard Shri S.N. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Shri Sharma does not challenge conviction of the petitioner under section 325 I.P.C. and he has confined his submissions on the question of sentence only. 3. I have heard Shri S.N. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Shri Sharma does not challenge conviction of the petitioner under section 325 I.P.C. and he has confined his submissions on the question of sentence only. Shri Sharma has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner ought to have given the benefit of section 360 Cr.P.C. and that the Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in not considering the question as to whether the petitioner may be released on probation under section 360 Cr.P.C. in support of the aforesaid submission Shri Sharma has pointed out that the injury which is said to have been caused by the petitioner on the person of Rampyari is on the wrist joint. 4. Shri Sharma has also submitted that the petitioner has been previously convicted. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it would be just and proper to release the accused petitioner on probation under section 363 Cr.P.C. 6. In the result, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 325 I.P.C. it is directed that the accused petitioner Brij Lal may be released on probation on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. The said bond should be furnished to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh. The petitioner may be released on his submitting the aforesaid bond. In the event of the failure to furnish the bond aforesaid or the petitioner committing breach of the bond, he would have to undergo the sentence which has been awarded to him by the courts below.Revision partly allowed. *******