JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa, Camp at Jaipur, dated 11th Oct., 84 by which, he confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under section 176, IPC and maintained the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and the fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months' SI. 2. The facts of this case are that on 10th March 79, a report was lodged at PS-Jobner, alleging that on 30th Jan. 79, at about 11 AM, accused Pannalal, along with four other accused persons, was working on the electric pole. Hanuman brother of the informant, was also with Panna Lal, who died on account of electric current. Pannalal who was a lineman, at that time, did not inform the police, and cremated the dead-body. The informant alleged that he was not informed by anybody that he should make a report in the police in the matter. On this report, the police investigated the matter and submitted a challan against Pannalal and three more persons. The learned Magistrate, after trial, acquitted Dhanesh, Kumar, Anandilal and Raghunath. He, however, found Pannalal guilty and sentenced him as mentioned above. 3. Against that conviction and the sentence, accused Pannalal preferred an appeal before the Addl. Sessins Judge. who vide his judgment dated 11th Oct. 84, dismissed the said appeal and maintained the conviction and the sentence awarded to the accused by the lower Court. Against this judgment, the present revision petition has been preferred. 4. Mr. Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no case is made out against the petitioner, and that, the learned Magistrate has erred in convicting the accused. 5. It is not disputed that Pannalal was working as a Lineman, and Hanuman was also with him and working on the electric pole and that on account of electric current, Hanuman died. Pannalal was Lineman, and in his presence, Hanuman got electric current and ultimately died. It was the duty of Pannalal to have informed the police as well as the department. But, he kept silent. Whatever may be the evidence on the record, but this fact is not disputed that Pannalal was Lineman and in his presence, Hanuman got electric current on account of which, be ultimately died at the spot. It was the duty of Pannalal to have informed the police as well as the department. But, he kept silent. Whatever may be the evidence on the record, but this fact is not disputed that Pannalal was Lineman and in his presence, Hanuman got electric current on account of which, be ultimately died at the spot. So, it was the duty of Pannalal to have informed the police immediately. As he failed to do so, he has rightly been held guilty of the offence under section 176, IPC. 6. Under these circumstances, I do not feel inclined to interfere in the order of the learned lower Court. 7. Mr. Mathur then requested that looking to the fact that the petitioner is a Government servant and also all other circumstances of this case, the petitioner may be given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Mr. Mathur also argued that if the sentence. of imprisonment till the rising of the Court is maintained, then, there is every possibility that the petitioner may lose his job. Under such circumstances, he prayed that benefit of probation be extended to the petitioner. 8. No doubt, this offence was committed by the petitioner, Panna Lal. But, keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I feel that instead of maintaining the sentence of imprisonment, the petitioner should be given the benefit of probation. 9. In the result, the revision petition is partly accepted. The conviction of the petitioner under section 176, IPC, is maintained. But, instead of sentencing him to any imprisonment, it is ordered that he be released on probation on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/-with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, for keeping the peace and being of good behaviour for a period of one year. If during this period he repeats any such offence, he shall be taken into custody to undergo simple imprisonment awarded to him in default of payment of fine.Revision partly accepted. *******