JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Alwar (Camp-Behror) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1773/83 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioners and confirmed the judgment of the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Behror dated 17-7-1982. The accused petitioners were sentenced to fine only. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners without challenging the merits of the case simply submitted that looking to the concurrent finding of fact the accused petitioners should be given the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Both the courts below did not give any special reasons as is necessary under the provisions of Section 360 and 361, Cr.PC while disallowing the request for the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (here in after referred to as the Act of 1958). Learned counsel submits that there are circumstances under which the petitioners can be given the benefit of probation. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused-petitioners can be given the benefit of probation but the complainant should be compensated. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. This is correct to say that both the courts below while disallowing the prayer for the benefit of probation simply wrote that looking to the circumstances of the case, the accused persons are not entitled to get the benefit of probation. I am of the view that this reason cannot be held to be sufficient in view of the provisions of Sections 360 and 361, Cr.PC. Both the courts have overlooked the mandatory provisions of law. What the special reasons means within the meaning of Section 361, Cr.PC has been dealt with by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bishnu Deo Shaw v. State of West Bengal, ( AIR 1979 SC 964 ) . In para 25 of the aforesaid judgment, their Lordships observed as under: "Apart from Section 354(3), there is another provision in the Code which also uses the significant expression 'special reasons'. In para 25 of the aforesaid judgment, their Lordships observed as under: "Apart from Section 354(3), there is another provision in the Code which also uses the significant expression 'special reasons'. It is Section 361, Section 360 of the 1973 Code re-enacts, in substance, Section 562 of the 1898 Code and provides for the release on probation of good conduct or after admonition any person not under twenty one years of age who is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or any person under twenty one years of age or any woman who is convicted to an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if no previous offence is proved against the offender, and if it appears to Court, having regard to the age, character or antecedents, of the offender and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct or after admonition. If the Court refrains from dealing with an offender Under Section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, or any other law for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, where the Court could have done so, Section 361, which is a new provision in the 1973 Code makes it mandatory for the Court to record in its judgment the 'special reasons' for not doing so. Section 361 thus casts a duty upon the court to apply the provisions of Section 360 wherever it is possible to do so and, to state '"special reasons" if it does not do so. In the context of Section 360, the ''special reasons" contemplated by Section 361 must be such as to compel the court to hold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender after examining the matter with due regard to the age, character and antecedents of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence was commuted. This is some indication by the Legislature that reformation and rehabilitation of offenders, and not mere deterrence, are now among the foremost objects of the administration of criminal justice in our country. This is some indication by the Legislature that reformation and rehabilitation of offenders, and not mere deterrence, are now among the foremost objects of the administration of criminal justice in our country. Section 361 and Section 354(3) have both entered the Statute Book at the same time and they are part of the emerging picture of acceptance by the Indian Parliament of the new trends in criminology. We will not, therefore, be wrong in assuming that the personality of the offender as revealed by his age, character, antecedents and other circumstances and the tractability of the offender to reform must necessarily play the most prominent role in determining the sentence to be awarded. Special reasons must have some relation to these factors. 7. Same view has been taken in the case S under and Other v. The State of Rajasthan and Dhanna and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan 1982 Raj. Cr. Cases 80 . 8. In the instant case, the theft is said to be of Bajra crop which is claimed to have been sown by the complainant whereas the accused-petitioners in their defence have stated that the crop was swon by them. The case of the accused-petitioners before the trial Court was that the land in dispute from where the crop is stated to have been stolen was sold to them by the complainant Ramprem and an agreement to sell was executed by Ramprem in favour of the accused-petitioners. Copy of the agreement has been filed before the trial court, in which it has been stated that possession to the accused-petitioners shall be delivered after the sale-deed is registered, but the accused-petitioners under this bonafide belief that part of the sale amount has been paid to the complainant and as such they are entitled to harvest the crop, they took away the crop, though this was not a legal belief on the part of the petitioners. The execution of agreement to sell is admitted by the complainant Ramprem, but it has been stated by him that the agreement was got executed by him under intoxication. At this stage. I do not want to express any opinion on the execution of the agreement and its effect, but this is a circumstance in favour of the accused-petitioners to give them the benefit of probation under the Act of 1958. 9. At this stage. I do not want to express any opinion on the execution of the agreement and its effect, but this is a circumstance in favour of the accused-petitioners to give them the benefit of probation under the Act of 1958. 9. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the benefit of probation under the Act of 1958 should be given to the petitioners and compensation can be awarded to the complainant. 10. In the result, the revision petition is partly accepted. While maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioners for the offence for which they have been convicted, it is hereby ordered that the accused-petitioners shall be released on probation in case each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive the sentence if the condition of the bond is not fulfilled. As stated above the complainant should be paid compensation Under Section 5 of the Act of 1958 to the tune of Rs. 1200/-which shall be paid by the accused-petitioners in equal share, i.e., Rs. 300/-each. The bond and the amount of compensation should be furnished and deposited in the trial court within three months from today.Revision Partly accepted. *******