JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of both the learned Counsel the revision petition is disposed of today. 2. The petitioner was challaned Under Section 304A and 279 Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate after concluding trial found him guilty and sentenced him to 9 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence Under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code and 3 months' R.I. for the offence Under Section 279 Indian Penal Code. Apart from this sentence be has also imposed a fine of L 50/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 day's S.I. An appeal was filed which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta vide order dated 19-7-89. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the provisions of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code are mandatory provisions and the learned lower Courts have not considered this provision. According to Section 361 Criminal Procedure Code of the trial Court or the appellate Court find that it is not a case where probation is to be granted then the Court should have recorded its reasons for not granting him the probation. As the lower Courts have not followed the provisions of Sections 360 and 361 Criminal Procedure Code they have left this lacuna and it is prayed that the petitioners be considered for releasing him on probation. He has also argued that in number of cases this Court has granted probation in such cases. 4. Considered the arguments. Both the Courts have found the petitioner guilty of the offence Under Section 304A and 279 Indian Penal Code and I do not want to enter into the merit as there is concurrent finding of fact. The argument is that the petitioners be ordered to be released on probation and the petitioner is willing to pay some compensation to the family members of the deceased, Gajraj Singh. 5. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code and the fact that this incident had taken place in the year 1982, it is proper and justify to release the petitioner on probation as there is no adverse remarks about his committing any such offence after 1932, but it is reasonable if some amount is given to the family-members of deceased Gajraj Singh. 6. The revision petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner is maintained as held by the lower Courts. 6. The revision petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner is maintained as held by the lower Courts. The petitioner instead of sending to jail is ordered to be released on probation on furnishing one surety of L 10 000/- and a personal bond of the same amount for not repeating such offence in futures. He is asked to pay compensation of L 1000/- and this amount after depositing by the petitioner be paid to the legal Representatives of Gajraj Singh, deceased. The amount will be deposited within two months. If has is not deposited the order of releasing on probation shall stand vacated and he will taken into custody to undergo the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court.Revision partly allowed. *******