JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra dated April 16, 1985 on the ground that despite it being a fit case for extending the benefit under the probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner, the learned Judge declined to do so. 2. The case against the petitioner was that on June 25, 1979 when he was to be on duty as Conductor on Bus No. RRM 1962 he asked Dalpatsingh (another Conductor)-co-accused to perform the duty of Conductor The case against Dalpatsingh was under section 170 I.P.C. for wrong personification of the Conductor Hari singh whereas Hari singh was held guilty by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra for abatement of the offence under section 170/109 I.P.C. 3. Notice at the admission stage was issued to the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. S.K. Mathur has put in appearance on behalf of the State. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties the revision petition was heard finally today. 4. Heard Mr. M. C. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Mathur, learned public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Mr. Bhandari submitted that Dalpatsingh never represented himself to be Harisingh and there was no question of any abatement of the offence by Dalpatsingh and therefore, no offence was made out. He, however, submitted that Girdharisingh. Inspector having died, Harisingh could not substantiate his case that he had intimated the concerned authority about his ailment and for that reason his medical certificate for June 25, 1979 and his being on leave on that date could not help him. 6. Mr. Bhandari submitted that though it is a ease of acquittal, he would pray for the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act to be extended to the petitioner Harisingh because the submission before the Appellate Court was confined to that prayer only. 7. Upon perusal of the record, consider it a fit case in which the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act should be extended to petitioner Hari singh. Mr. S.K. Mathur, learned Public Prosecutor in view of the facts and circumstances case, does not contest this prayer. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner for the charge under section 170/109 I.P.C. is maintained. The sentence of fine of Rs. Mr. S.K. Mathur, learned Public Prosecutor in view of the facts and circumstances case, does not contest this prayer. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner for the charge under section 170/109 I.P.C. is maintained. The sentence of fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo two months S.I. is set aside. The petitioner is given benefit under section 4 of the probation of Offenders. Act and it is ordered that the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for an amount of Rs. 1000/- with one surety in the like amount to the Satisfaction of the Additional decided by the. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period one year from today. It the facts and circumstances of the case, it is further clarified that the conviction of the petitioner shall not affect his service.Revision partly allowed. *******