JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of both the learned counsel, this revision petition is being disposed of finally, at this stage. 2. This revision has been preferred by the complainant, against the order dated 8th June, 88, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Baas, convicting the respondent of offence u/s. 354, IPC, who, instead of sentencing the accused to any imprisonment, ordered to release him on probation on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- together with two sureties of Rs. 2,500/- each, for maintaining the peace and being of good behaviour for a period of two years. 3. A report was lodged by the complainant on 3rd May, 86 against accused respondent No. 1; and on the basis of that complaint, a case u/s. 376/511, IPC was registered. The respondent was challaned for this offence. But, the trial court found that no case was made out u/s, 376/511, IPC, which, however, found him guilty of offence u/s. 354, IPC: and as mentioned above, instead of sentencing the accused to imprisonment, it passed order for releasing hm on probation. That order has been challenged in this revision petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court has committed error in granting probation to the accused-respondent. He argued that this is a case where the modesty of a woman was outraged by the accused and who was found guilty by the trial court. According to him, such cases should not be dealt with leniently by the court. He prayed that the order granting probation, be set aside and the accused-respondent be punished. It was also prayed that the complainant be granted some compensation for this offence. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent argued that the offence was committed when the accused was about 18 years of age. When an accused is below 21 years of age, the, he has to be granted probation. If in such a case, probation is not to be granted, then, the court has to record reasons for that. I find, this is not a case in which probation is to be refused. 6. After considering the arguments, I find that the accused was about 18 years of age; and the act that he committed was of outraging modesty of a woman. I find, this is not a case in which probation is to be refused. 6. After considering the arguments, I find that the accused was about 18 years of age; and the act that he committed was of outraging modesty of a woman. In the society, such acts are not appreciated by the people. Therefore, while granting probation, this fact is to be considered. As the accused was below 21 years of age, I think, granting probation would not be illegal, but, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, it would have been proper if the trial court would have exercised its jurisdiction u/s. 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which gives power to the court to grant compensation to the complainant. The trial court has not granted any compensation. It may be possible that this point might not have been raised there. Anyway, in this revision, this point was raised, and I considered this argument also, and I am of the opinion that some compensation should be granted to the complainant. 7. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of, while maintaining the order of the trial court. But, a sum of Rs. 50/- is hereby granted as compensation to the complainant, from the respondent. This amount would be paid by accused-respondent Ramesh to the complainant, within two months.Revision disposed of accordingly. *******