JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge(2), Alwar, dated 27-4-79 affirming the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 147, 323 and 452, Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioners along with Sumer, Chhotekhan and Paltu were challaned under Sections 452, 147 and 323/149, Indian Penal Code in the Court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate (2), Alwar. After trial of the case, the learned Magistrate found accused Sumer, Chhote khan and Paltu guilty of the offence under Section 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and acquitted them from the charge under Section 452, Indian Penal Code. He found the petitioners Lila and Salli guilty of the offence under section 452, 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code. For the offence under section 452, each of them was sentenced to 3 months RI and fine of Rs. 100/-. For the offence under section 147, Indian Penal Code each of them was sentenced to one month's RI and for the offence under section 323, Indian Penal Code each of them was punished with a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine, each accused was ordered to undergo 15 days RI. 3. An appeal was preferred by the accused, and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal but ordered to release accused Sumer, Chhotekhan and Paltu on probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. They were directed to submit a surety of Rs. 1,000/- each for maintaining peace and good behaviour. The conviction and sentence of the present petitioners were maintained. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not argued this revision petition on merits, but only prayed to release the petitioners on probation. He submitted that the present petitioners have also been convicted for the offence under section 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code like other accused persons who have been released on probation, and as such the case of these petitioners is identical to that of Sumer, Chhotekhan and Paltu. 5. The only ground on which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not grant benefit of probation to these petitioners is that they were found guilty for the offence under section 452, Indian Penal Code. Mr. 5. The only ground on which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not grant benefit of probation to these petitioners is that they were found guilty for the offence under section 452, Indian Penal Code. Mr. Shrimal contended that the incident relates to the year 1976 and since then the petitioners are facing trial which is creating physical and mental agony to them in my opinion, this is no ground that because the petitioners were found guilty for the offence under section 452, Indian Penal Code, they were refused the benefit of probation. The matter is of a trivial nature and the petitioners are of about 28-30 years of age Mr. Shrimal has cited the case Bishnu Deo Shaw v. State of West Bengal, ( AIR 1979 SC 964 ) , in support of his contention. 6. I have considered the arguments. The contention of Mr. Shrimal is acceptable, because there is no sense in sending the petitioners to jail after a lapse of 9 years. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners be also released on probation. 7. The revision petition is, therefore, partly accepted. The conviction of the petitioners under Section 452, 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code is maintained, but instead of sending them to jail they are ordered to be released on probation on furnishing a surety of Rs. 1,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court to maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of one year from the data of furnishing surety.Revision partly accepted. *******