JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, J.—The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Una and Hamirpur Districts. The learned Sessions Judge, however, dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. During the course of arguments, it was prayed on behalf of the petitioner that he may be given the benefit of Section 360 Cr. P.C., being the first offender. The learned Sessions Judge, however, rejected the plea of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has now filed this revision petition in this Court. A few facts relevant to the case may be stated. The petitioner accompanied by Ashoke Kumar and Sirkoo visited the cattle-shed of the complainant on 11th October, 1978 at about 7.30 P.M. and enquired of him as to whether he would accompany them to see a drama (Ram Leela) at village Thathal. The complainant and the appellant belong to village Oel within District Una. The complainant Waryam Singh agreed to accompany them to the drama. Meanwhile, the accused picked up a steel-match-case containing match box, to light a cigarette. The complainant demanded the return of the match-box with steel-cover from the petitioner but he refused to do so and threatened the complainant that he would teach him a lesson. The complainant, however, alongwith Pawan Kumar went to Thathal to see the drama as the petitioner and his friends had disappeared from his cattle-shed. On return from the drama at about 3 A.M., the complainant alongwith Pawan Kumar saw the petitioner and his friends following them. S/Shri Ashoke Kumar and Sirkoo sat down near a Ashram but the petitioner continued to follow the complainant and Pawan Kumar, On the way, the complainant questioned the petitioner as to why he was following them. The petitioner in reply told him that he had left his muffler in his cattle-shed and that he was accompanying the complainant to his cattle-shed. The petitioner in reply told him that he had left his muffler in his cattle-shed and that he was accompanying the complainant to his cattle-shed. When the complainant and Pawan Kumar reached the cattle-shed, the petitioner assaulted the complainant from behind with a knife and gave three knife blows in succession causing injuries to him. One injury was inflicted on the left side of the back of chest, another on the left shoulder joint and the third on the scalp. The injuries resulted into bleeding. The petitioner ran away from there after causing the said injuries. The clothes of the complainant were smeared with blood that oozed out of the injuries. 4. On 3rd May, 1984, the matter was considered by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner again pressed the claim for giving benefit to the petitioner under Section 360 Cr.P.C. It was ordered by the court that before considering this prayer, it was desirable to obtain a report about the character and antecedents of the petitioner from the District Probation Officer (District Welfare Officer), Una. The report of the Probation Officer has been submitted and is placed on record. It is reported by the Probation Officer that the petitioner is a young-man of about 25 years and belongs to village Oel, Tebsil Amb, District Una. It is pointed out that he is an educated person and has passed his Matriculation Examination during the year 1978. It is also reported that the petitioner is dependent on his father who is serving at Delhi in Janpath Hotel, New Delhi. It is mentioned in the report that the character and conduct of the petitioner before and after the incident is quite good and people speak well of him. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was a youngman of 21 years at the time of occurrence. It is stated that the petitioner is not criminal minded and is known to be an innocent and law-abiding person. He is stated to be unemployed and is cultivating a small holding of land. According to the Probation Officer, there is no adverse reflection on the life and conduct of the petitioner or any member of his family. The petitioner is stated to be a first offender. It is pointed out that the petitioner and the members of his family are law-abiding persons. According to the Probation Officer, there is no adverse reflection on the life and conduct of the petitioner or any member of his family. The petitioner is stated to be a first offender. It is pointed out that the petitioner and the members of his family are law-abiding persons. According to the report, the petitioner had committed the offence due to provocation. Ultimately the Probation Officer has recommended that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is released under Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Mr. M.R. Chaudhary does not dispute the correctness of the report submitted by the Probation Officer. At the same time, he has no objection if the petitioner is given an opportunity to reform himself. 5. After considering the report of the Probation Officer and having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, I am of the view that it is expedient to release the petitioner on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing him at once to the punishment awarded to him, thereby giving him an opportunity for reformation. 6. As such, the petitioner is directed to be released on his entering into a bond with one surety to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during two years and, in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. 7. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly.