JUDGMENT 1. - In this appeal against the judgment dated March 19, 1979 of the learned Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the ground that some of the accused had been bounden down earlier under Sec 116 and 117 Cr. P.C. cannot be said to be special reason within the meaning of Section 361 Cr. P.C. for refusing the benefit to the appellants of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, the Act). 2. The learned Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu under his aforesaid judgment convicted the accused-appellant Harlal and Karam under Section 147 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He also convicted each of the aforesaid accused-appellant under Section 325 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months rigorous imprisonment. Both the accused-appellants were also convicted under Section 323, 324 read with Sec 149 IPC and each of them has been sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. So far as accused appellant Harnand is concerned he was also convicted under Section 147, 323, 324, 325 read with Section 149 IPC, Under the first count he was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under the second to six months rigorous imprisonment and under the third count he was sentenced to 9 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months rigorous imprisonment. 3. It is not necessary to give facts in detail as they are contained in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The only ground advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that in a case of present nature the appellant should have been given the benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, or else the court must have recorded special reasons in its judgment for refusing such benefit to the accused appellants. According to him the mere fact that the accused appellant had been bounden down under Section 116 or Section 117 Cr P.C. cannot be said to be any special reason within the meaning of Section 361 Cr.P.C. for declining him the benefit of Sec 4 of the Act 4. According to him the mere fact that the accused appellant had been bounden down under Section 116 or Section 117 Cr P.C. cannot be said to be any special reason within the meaning of Section 361 Cr.P.C. for declining him the benefit of Sec 4 of the Act 4. It is not disputed that in this case on behalf of the accused persons Kana Ram and Harlal received injuries and Kana Ram received 7 injuries whereas Harlal received 5 injuries Even the Investigating Officer Hanuman Singh P.W. 7 has admitted in his statement that Harlal accused had also gave information that these are injuries on his person. This is a case where the occurrence took place near the fields of the accused persons and two accused persons received injuries on their person. The cause of incident is not known So far as interim bonds are concerned, they were taken on December 26, 1977 almost 8 months before the occurrence. Under the circumstances, more so the accused have undergone few months sentence and the offences are such which could be dealt with under Section 4 of the Act, I find no reason to decline the benefit of that section to the accused appellants, when the recent trend of the court is reformative. 5. Consequently, I partly allow this appeal and while maintaining the conviction under various sections, taking into consideration that the accused also received injuries, it is hereby directed each of the accused-appellants shall be I released on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. It is also directed that each of the appellants shall pay Rs. 500/- under Section 5 of the Act to the injured Naurang Ram for the injuries received by him at their hands. Thus in all Rs. 1500/-shall be paid to the injured. Two months time is allowed to furnish the aforesaid bonds and deposit the amount in the trial court On depositing the aforesaid amount the trial court shall give notice to the injured Naurang Ram to receive the amount. Thus in all Rs. 1500/-shall be paid to the injured. Two months time is allowed to furnish the aforesaid bonds and deposit the amount in the trial court On depositing the aforesaid amount the trial court shall give notice to the injured Naurang Ram to receive the amount. In case the bonds are not furnished and the amount is not deposited, within the aforesaid time, the trial court shall see that the appellants serve out the sentences awarded to them.Appeal Partly allowed. *******