JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals (No. 383/80 filed by Baghu; and No. 384/80 filed by Gopal) are directed against a common judgment dated 16-9-1980 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 70/79 (113/79), arising out of one incident; whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : under section 324/34 IPC each of the appellants have been sentenced to undergo 2 years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further 3 month's R.I. 2. The accused appellants have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence said to have been committed on 13-6-79 for which a challan was filed against the accused appellants and after trial the accused appellants have been convicted as aforesaid by the judgment under appeal. Both the appellants have filed their separate appeals, Since both these appeals have been filed against the common judgment, so they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. Without going into the merits of the case and challenging the findings of the trial court, the learned counsel for the accused appellants merely submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1979 and at the time of occurrence, the accused appellants were of young age. The learned sessions Judge though considered the case of the present appellants for extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, but refrained to extend the said benefit without giving any special reasons as is required by section 361 Criminal Procedure Code Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that looking to the age and antecedent of the accused-appellants this is a fit case where the accused appellants should be extended the benefit of section 360 Cr.P.C or of the provisions contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short "the Act"). 4. Leased Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that though no special reason has been given by the learned Sessions Judge in refraining himself to extend the benefit of section 300 Cr.P.C and of the provisions of the Act, but looking to the offensive act of the accused appellants they are not entitled to get the benefit of Probation or any leniency. 5. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case and to consider as to whether the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are proper or not. However, I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court as well as the statement of the prosecution witnesses and I am satisfied that the conviction of the accused appellants for the offence was justifiable. 6. Though the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused persons of such offences, one of which was punishable with imprisonment of more than 7 years. still the learned Sessions Judge did not extend the benefit of section 360 PC or benefit under the provisions of this Act to the accused appellants. Learned Sessions Judge while passing the sentence merely stated in his judgment that looking to the facts and circumstance and age of the accused appellant their case cannot be considered for extending the benefit of the Act or of section 360 Criminal Procedure Code under section 361 Cr it is obligatory on the part of the court passing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused for the offence which is not punishable with imprisonment of more than 7 years, to give special reasons under section 361 Criminal Procedure Code if the court does not feel inclined to extend the benefit of the aforesaid provisions to the accused. It is thus clear that learned Sessions Judge fell in error in not recording the special reasons as is provided under section 361 Cr.P.C. 7. In this view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, overlooked the mandatory provisions of law. What `special reasons' means within the meaning of section 361 Cr. P C. has been dealt with by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bishnudeo v. State of W.B., AIR 1979 SC page 964. In para 25 of the aforesaid judgment their Lordship observed: "In the context of section 360, the "special reasons" contemplated by S. 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 committed. This is some indication by the Legislature that reformation and rehabilitation of offenders, and not more 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." 8. It has not been alleged that the accused appellants have been previously convicted or that the antecedent of the accused appellants are such that they could not be extended the benefit of provisions of the Act or of section 360 Criminal Procedure Code. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case the age of the accused, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the benefit of the provisions of the Act as well as of section 360 Criminal Procedure Code can be extended to the accused appellants. 9. In the result, allow these appeals in part. While maintaining the conviction of both the accused appellant for the offence for which they have been convicted for the reasons already stated earlier, it is, therefore, ordered that instead of sentencing them at once to an imprisonment, the accused appellants shall by released on each of them entering into a bond In the sum of Rs. 2000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer to appear and receive sentence during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. I will also direct that each of the accused appellants shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/-. each to the injured person Ranjeet Singh. The accused appellants are directed to deposit the said amount in the Court of Sessions Judge within the period of two months. The accused appellants are further directed to furnish the aforesaid bond within the said period. If the aforesaid amount of Rs. 500/-. each to the injured person Ranjeet Singh. The accused appellants are directed to deposit the said amount in the Court of Sessions Judge within the period of two months. The accused appellants are further directed to furnish the aforesaid bond within the said period. If the aforesaid amount of Rs. 500/- as have been directed above to be deposited by both the accused appellants under section 5 of the Act, is deposited in the Court of Sessions, then the learned Sessions Judge shall give notice to the injured person to receive the aforesaid amount of compensation.Appeal partly allowed. *******