JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner in this case but has submitted that he should be given the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act instead of sentence of imprisonment. It is submitted that offence relates to the year 1978 and it is past 9 years that the accused has been facing trial. It is sufficient punishment has been given to the petitioner inasmuch as for all these years. They had faced the Criminal Litigation. Learned appellate Judge has refused the benefit of S. 360 Cr. P.C. to the accused. petitioner because the witnesses Kuber Prasad and Aliuddin pointing towards the accused had used the word "BADMAASH" for the accused and the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has stated that in Karoli area "BADMAASH" means somebody who is involved in a case like dacoity. It is regrettable that neither the trial Court nor the appellate court has properly construed the provisions of S. 360 Cr. P.C. and refused the benefit on the point extraneous to the consideration for grant of probation. In fact the trial court ought not to have inferred the meanings without there being proper evidence and the appellate court fell in error in not independently considering the circumstances. He has subscribed to the meaning given by the trial court. It is expected of the Judicial officers to use the polite language even for an accused rather than finding out meanings from public utterance as has been done in the instant case. There was neither a case of dacoity registered against the accused nor there was a charge nor there is evidence that he participated ill any case of dacoity unless the evidence was led and the fact proved, it is too far to infer what the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has said in the judgment. The accused is facing trial since 1978 and 9 year have elapsed which is a long period for any case to come to an end. Pendency of a criminal case for such a long period are nothing is short of mental, physical and economic hardship to the accused which must be weighed according to t he circumstances of each case. The accused is facing trial since 1978 and 9 year have elapsed which is a long period for any case to come to an end. Pendency of a criminal case for such a long period are nothing is short of mental, physical and economic hardship to the accused which must be weighed according to t he circumstances of each case. It has been mentioned in the orders of the court below that the accused is not a previous convict and in these circumstances it would be in the interest of justice to extend him the benefit of S. 360 Cr. P.C. 2. Consequently revision petition is allowed. Conviction is maintained but instead of sentence the accused shall be released on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 2000/-. with one surety in the like amount for keeping peace and be of good behaviour to the satisfaction of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karoli. Accused is given one month's time to execute the bonds. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Revision allowed. *******