JUDGMENT 1. - Accused Sukhram was convicted under section 332, IPC and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months like imprisonment by the learned Judicial Magistrate (1) Bikaner vide his judgment dated June 27, 1979. He went in appeal. But his appeal was dismissed and his conviction and sentence were maintained by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner vide his judgment dated August 11, 1983. He has now come in revision. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the accused made an assault on police constable Premsingh at about 6 p. m. on 19.9.74. He dragged him and struck a blow on his back with a shoe. A report was made to the police. The police after usual investigation, submitted a challan against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. On the conclusion of trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 3. In view of the overwhelming evidence and concurrent findings of the two courts-below, the learned counsel for the accessed did not challenge his conviction. His contention before me is that the trial court failed to make a compliance of the provisions of Section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inasmuch as it did not record in its judgment the special reasons for not extending the benefit of Probation to the accused. It was argued that the provisions of Sections 360 and 361, Cr. P.C. are mandatory. It was further aroused that there was no previous conviction at the discredit of the accused. There were no good reasons as to why the benefit of probation should not be extended to him. As such, the benefit of probation be given to the accused. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence was of serious nature. A public servant was assaulted and hurt was caused to him while he was discharging his duties as such. In these circumstances, the benefit of probation of good conduct should not be extended to the accused. I have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 4. Section 360, Cr. A public servant was assaulted and hurt was caused to him while he was discharging his duties as such. In these circumstances, the benefit of probation of good conduct should not be extended to the accused. I have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 4. Section 360, Cr. P.C. makes it obligatory on the part of the court that whenever any person not under 21 years of age, is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, he is to be released on probation of good conduct, keeping his age, character etc. in view. Section 361, Cr.P.C. lays down inexplicit terms that where the provisions of Sec. 360, Cr.P.C. are applicable and court wants to have a departure from these provision, it shall record in its judgment, the special reasons for not doing so i.e. in not releasing the offenders on probation of good conduct. The provisions of Sec.361, Cr. P. C. for recording the special reasons, are mandatory and admit no exception. It is of course open to a court not to have a resort to Section 360 but in doing so, the law viz. Section 361 caste a duty on him to record the reasons. I am fortified in my view by the observations made in Vishnu Dev v. State of West Bengal (A.I.R. 1979 S. C. 964) . 5. It is apparent from a bare perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate that he has not recorded in his judgment the special reasons for not releasing the accused on probation of good conduct under section 360. Cr. P.C. It is lamentable that this important provision of law also escaped the notice of the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Any way, the matter may now be dealt with. No previous conviction stands at the discredit of the accused. The offence was committed long back in the year 1974. The offence under section 332, IPC is punishable for a term, which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Taking all these factors Into consideration, it would not. be proper to send the accused to jail, where he is likely to come in contact with hardened criminals. It would be in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of probation of good conduct to him under section 360, Cr.P.C. 7. Taking all these factors Into consideration, it would not. be proper to send the accused to jail, where he is likely to come in contact with hardened criminals. It would be in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of probation of good conduct to him under section 360, Cr.P.C. 7. In the result, the revision of accused Sukh Ram is partly allowed. His conviction under section 332, IPC is maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded to him is for the present set aside and it is ordered that the accused will be released, if he enters into a bond for Rs. 2500/- together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate (1), Bikaner to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The learned Magistrate is directed to release the accused as soon as the bonds referred to above are furnished before him.Revision partly allowed. *******