N. N. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against order dated 27-7-1981 recorded by Sri G. D. Dubey, I Addi. District Judge, Jaunpur who dismissed Criminal appeal No. 152 of 1980 and affirmed the order of Sri R. P. Verma, learned IVt Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur dated 7-10-1980 in Criminal case no. 746 of 1979 by which the revisionist was convicted under sections 323/504 and 506, I. P. C. The sentence awarded was 16 days Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- under each count. However, the aforesaid sentences were postponed for one year provided the revisionist kept peace and remained of good behaviour. If the revisionist was found guilty of any other offence during this period the aforesaid sentences were to operate. The revisionist was ordered to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 500/- and furnish one surety bond for a period of one year in the like amount and thus was to be released on probation forthwith. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case briefly stated was that on 1-1-1979 at about 8 A. M. the revisionist went to the house of complainant Moosey, P. W. 1, and forcibly carried a kid. When complainant objected to it he was abused by the revisionist and assaulted with lathi, fists and kicks. It was on intervention of witnesses Ram Ujagir, P. W. 2, and Raj Behari, P. W. 3, that revisionist left the kid and went away holding out threats. ( 3 ) THE complainant lodged report Ext. Ka 1 at police station Sikrara in the same fore-noon at 11. 45 A. M. he could not get himself medically examined on account of poverty and when police did not take any action in the matter he filed the complaint on 4-1-1979. The accused was summoned by the Magistrate after following usual procedure of a complaint case. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined the aforesaid witnesses about the occurrence and one Dashrath, P. W. 4, who proved the F. I R. ( 5 ) IN his statement revisionist denied the aforesaid occurrence and alleged his implication to ill will with one Mog Sharma who got him involved in this case. ( 6 ) IN defence revisionist examined Harinath, D. W. 1, and Bankey Behari, D. W. 2, who denied the said occurrence and alleged the implication of revisionist to ill will. ( 6 ) IN defence revisionist examined Harinath, D. W. 1, and Bankey Behari, D. W. 2, who denied the said occurrence and alleged the implication of revisionist to ill will. ( 7 ) LEARNED Magistrate recorded impugned order which as affirmed in appeal. ( 8 ) I have heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri R. K. Srivastava learned A. G. A. ( 9 ) ON behalf of the revisionist it was pointed out that the bonds have already been furnished by the revisionist. I find the sentences awarded by the learned Magistrate unsustainable. A mere look at Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act (Act No. 20 of 1968) shall go to disclose that the order recorded by learned Magistrate and affirmed in appeal is wholly illegal and liable to be quashed. The learned Magistrate has sentenced the revisionist under three counts to imprisonment as well as find, and has also extended him the benefit of probation Act. ( 10 ) OBVIOUSLY an order under section 4 (1) Probation of Offenders Act cannot be said to be a punishment as was held in State v. Jagdish. ( 11 ) RELEASE on probation is not one of the various kinds of punishments described in section 53 of the Indian Penal Code. An accused cannot be punished and at the some time released on his entering into a bond with or without sureties to appear and receive the sentence when called upon and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Thus the order of learned Magistrate was not in conformity with the said provisions. ( 12 ) IN Karim Bakhsh v. Emperor, the accused was sentenced to pay a fine and was also released on probation under section 562 of Old Code of Cr. P. C (Act no. V of 1898 ). Such order was struck down as illegal. Mt. Varkat v. Emperor, the accused was sentenced to imprisonment as well as benefit of probation of good conduct under section 562 of the Old Code of Cr. P. C. (Act No. V of 1898) was also extended to her. Such a release of the convict on probation of good conduct as well as imprisonment was held as beyond the competence of the learned Magistrate. P. C. (Act No. V of 1898) was also extended to her. Such a release of the convict on probation of good conduct as well as imprisonment was held as beyond the competence of the learned Magistrate. In Jamsher v. Emperor, the accused was ordered to be released on probation of good conduct under section 562 of the Old Code of Cr. P. C. but imprisonment was ordered on failure to furnish other security. This order was held as illegal. ( 13 ) IT further appears from the order recorded by learned Magistrate that if during that period revisionist was found guilty of any other offence he would expose himself to the sentences awarded by the learned Magistrate. Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. He should have passed an order under section 4 (1) of the Probation Act. He should not have gone out of his way to pass an arbitrary order. ( 14 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the impugned order is unsustainable and quashed here with. Thus the revision is allowed. Revision allowed .