Judgment J. R. CHOPRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated 29-4-1978 whereby the learned lower Court has held accused appellant Mallaram, Mohan and Rama guilty of the offence under section 323, I. P. C. and has sentenced them to four months rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default to under go one months rigorous imprisonment. Accused Maharam, Mohan and Rama have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 394 and 332, I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that Head Constable Hinglajdan was posted at Police Station, Shambhugarh. On 5-5-76, P. W. 9 Shri Pushkar Dutt, Circle Officer, Gulabpura asked Shri Hinglajdan to call Shri Maharam in connection with case No. 55 of 1976 of Police Station, Asind relating to some burglary. It is alleged that Hinglajdan accompanied by constables Hemraj and Jagdish Singh went to the Dhani of Maharam and informed him that Circle Officer has called him for investigation. It is alleged that Maharam refused to accompany them and started abusing them. It is alleged that a case of burglary was registered under sections 457 and 380, I. P. C. at Police Station, Asind. Maharams wife also came and cried for help, whereupon, 3-4 persons came armed with lathis and they started beating them. The beating was done by Maharam, his younger brother Mohan and Maharams son-in-law Rama. Maharam had a sword with him. Others were armed with lathis. They snatched the gun from Shri Jagdish Singh and also snatched cycles and other articles from the police party. ( 3 ) A report of the incident marked Ex. P. 6 was lodged at Police Station, Badnor. Accused persons were arrested and thereafter the injured persons were got medically examined. Hinglajdan received in all 9 injuries whereas Hemraj received 6 injuries. All these injuries were simple in nature. The injury report of Hinglajdan has been marked Ex. P. 4 and the injury report of Hemraj was marked Ex. P. 5. Accused persons were arrested and thereafter the injured persons were got medically examined. Hinglajdan received in all 9 injuries whereas Hemraj received 6 injuries. All these injuries were simple in nature. The injury report of Hinglajdan has been marked Ex. P. 4 and the injury report of Hemraj was marked Ex. P. 5. ( 4 ) AFTER usual investigation, a case against accused persons was challaned under sections 394,332 and 353, I. P. C. in the court of learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, from where, it was transferred for trial to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, who charged all the accused persons with the offences under sections 394 and 332, I. P. C. The accused persons did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial, whereupon, the prosecution examine in all 9 witnesses to support of its case. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. They examined 2-3 witnesses in their defence. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the parties, the learned lower Court held that the offence under sections 394 and 332, I. P. C. was not made out against the accused-persons because articles which were alleged to have been snatched by them were left by the complainants (police party) there at the time of their running. They were not snatched from them. The Circle Officer, who deputed Shri Hinglajdan and Hemraj for bringing Maharam neither gave them any arrest warrant nor any written order to bring Maharam with them. Therefore, technically Shri Hemraj and party were not authorized to arrest Maharam. However, the learned Lower Court held that they were acting in the colour of their office because they were directed by the Circle Officer Shri Pushkar Dutt P. W. 9 to bring Maharam with them and so it was their duty to take him with them and under these circumstances, no right of private defence was available to the accused persons under section 99, I. P. C. When a public servant who was performing certain act in good faith under the colours of his office then that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. The learned lower Court placing reliance on Narsayaya Lachmayaya (Accused ). The learned lower Court placing reliance on Narsayaya Lachmayaya (Accused ). Applicant v. The State, Mohammed Ismail v. Emperor2 and Kanwar Singh and others, Appellants v. The Delhi Administration, Respondent3 held that when the public servant acted under the colour of his office and if somebody resisted his act to arrest him and give beating to him, offence under section 323 for causing him simple hurt can be held as proved against that accused person looking to the nature of the injuries inflicted by him because the right of resistance was not available to the accused persons in such cases. It has therefore decided this case as aforesaid and aggrieved against this judgment, these three convicted appellants have preferred this appeal. ( 6 ) I have heard. Mr. D. C. Hajela appearing for Mr. M. M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the accused appellant and Mr. B. C. Bhansali, learned Public Prosecutor for the state. ( 7 ) MR. Hajela has not challenged the conviction of the three accused appellants under section 323, I. P. C. recorded by the learned lower Court. He has submitted that the occurrence took place on 5- 5-1976, that is almost before 9 years and 8 months and hence it will be unjust to send back the accused persons to the custody in this case. The offence is of technical nature. When their liberty was in jeoparadise they could reasonably have thought that they have a right to resist such an attempt and therefore they inflicted the simple injuries to the persons who went to arrest Maharam without warrant or without any written order. Under these circumstances, the benefit of Probation of Offenders. Act should be extended to them in the facts and circumstances of this case. Looking to the nature of the offence, Mr. Bhansali has also not opposed this submission. ( 8 ) IN this case P. W. 1 Hinglajdan and P. W. 2 Hemraj have categorically stated that they were beaten by these three accused persons. Their injuries have been fully proved by P. W. 5 Dr. Looking to the nature of the offence, Mr. Bhansali has also not opposed this submission. ( 8 ) IN this case P. W. 1 Hinglajdan and P. W. 2 Hemraj have categorically stated that they were beaten by these three accused persons. Their injuries have been fully proved by P. W. 5 Dr. Murlidhar and, therefore, the learned lower Court was perfectly justified in holding these accused persons guilty of the offence under section 323, I. P. C. , because the Police Party went to arrest Maharam acting in the colour of their office and bonafidely thought that they were duty bound to take Maharam with them as ordered by the Circle Officer P. W. 9, Shri Pushkar Dutt. The occurrence has taken place before about 9 years and 8 months. Looking to the nature of the offence and time that has been elapsed after the commission of the crime it will be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused persons. ( 9 ) IN the result, this appeal is partially accepted. The conviction of accused appellants Maharam, Mohan and Rama is maintained under section 323, I. P. C. However, the sentence awarded against them is set aside and it is ordered that if each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 2,000/- together with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, they may be released on probation on the condition that they will keep peace and be of a good behaviour during the period of two years from the date of this order and shall come and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so during this period of two years. The learned counsel of the accused appellant prays for a two months time to furnish the required bonds. The time prayed for is allowed. The appeal is decided accordingly. Order accordingly.