K. K. BIRLA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred by Hari Singh and three others against the rejection of their appeal by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, against their conviction under S. 332, I. P. C. , sentencing them to one months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ -. ( 2 ) SMT. Kasturi Devi, revisionist No. 4, is a Safai Karamchari in Nagar Palika, Shamshabad, District Agra. Hari Singh, revisionist No. 1 is her husband and was an employee of the District Hospital, Shamshabad. On 27-10-1983 at 2 p. m. Ram Prakash, Safai Nayak, reported Smt. Kasturi Devi to be absent from her duty hours in the morning. There upon these two revisionists along with Rusi and Karan Singh came there and started assaulting Ram Prakash, Kasturi Devi threw brick bats. Ram Prakash and one Suresh were injured. On the F. I. R. lodged regarding this incident, the case proceeded under S. 332, I. P. C. and the accused were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Now they have preferred this revision. ( 3 ) THE revision was admitted on the point of sentence only. During arguments it was contended that the learned counsel for the revisionists that the offence made out, in fact, is not under S. 332, IPC but under S. 323, IPC. The incident is alleged to have taken place at the time when Ram Prakash was taking attendance of the Safai employees. Both the courts below have found the revisionists guilty under Section 332, IPC and the revision has been admitted on the point of sentence. Therefore, this contention on behalf of the revisionists cannot be accepted. ( 4 ) IT is next contended that the sentence passed against them is excessive and harsh, that two of the revisionists are employees and in the circumstances of the case the revisionists should have been released on probation. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A. G. A. Admittedly, two of the revisionists are employees. There is no reason to disbelieve the contention that the revisionists are not previous convicts. The injuries sustained are simple. Considering the nature and the circumstances of the incident. I am of the opinion that it is a fit case that the revisionists should be released on probation. There is no reason to disbelieve the contention that the revisionists are not previous convicts. The injuries sustained are simple. Considering the nature and the circumstances of the incident. I am of the opinion that it is a fit case that the revisionists should be released on probation. However, they should be asked to pay compensation to Sri Ram Prakash complainant, and each of them would pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 200/ -. ( 5 ) IT is further contended that under S. 12 of the Probation of offenders Act, 1958 (Central Act No. 20 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as Central Act) it should further be directed that no further action should be taken by the authorities in the matter. ( 6 ) THERE was a bone of contention before me about the applicability of Central Act (Act No. 20 of 1958) or applicability of U. P. First Offenders Act (U. P. Act No. VI of 1938) in the instant case. Before coming into force of the General Act (Act No. 20 of 1958) some States including U. P. had their own legislation regarding probation. The necessity of having a uniform law in this regard was felt. In the Objects and Reasons for the Bill No. 79 of 1957 (which was passed into the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958) it was observed that "in view of the widespread interest in the probation system in the country this question has been examined and it is proposed to have a Central Law which should be uniformly applicable to all States". It was with this object that the present Central Act was passed. However, under sub-clause (3) of S. 1 of the Act, this Act was to come into force in the State on such date as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different parts of the State. Therefore, the applicability of this Act would depend on the issuance of the notification by the State Government. By notification No. 683/xxvi-2-80-500 (25)-78, dt. May 29, 1980 published in U. P. Gazette, Part I dt. 21st June 1980, p. 848, this Central Act has been made applicable to 15 districts including Agra of this State. Therefore, I agree with the learned counsel for the revisionists that it is this Central Act which will be applicable in the instant case. May 29, 1980 published in U. P. Gazette, Part I dt. 21st June 1980, p. 848, this Central Act has been made applicable to 15 districts including Agra of this State. Therefore, I agree with the learned counsel for the revisionists that it is this Central Act which will be applicable in the instant case. ( 7 ) IT has next to be seen whether such directions can be issued in view of S. 12 of this Act which is as follows :-"12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of S. 3 or S. 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law : provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under Section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence. " ( 8 ) ON being released on probation, the revisionists become entitled to the benefit of this Section. ( 9 ) THE section gives a benefit to the person released on probation to the extent that he shall not suffer disqualification attaching to a conviction of an offence Disqualification should be one which is attached to a conviction of an offence and to that extent release on probation removes a disqualification. The departmental proceedings cannot be stressed to mean such disqualification as they do not attach to the conviction. See Om Prakash v. P and T Deptt. , AIR 1973 Punj and Har 1 (FB ). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Government employee is exonerated from disciplinary proceedings only because benefit of this section has been given to him. However, it may be observed that in this case the incident has taken place about 5 years back. Instead of giving sentence, it has been considered proper to release them on probation. The complainant has been awarded compensation also. In that eventuality the superior authority may be apprised of the facts of the employees being not sentenced but being released on probation of good conduct and the victim or complainant having been paid compensation which should be taken into consideration by the superior authority. ( 10 ) IN view of my above discussion the revision is partly allowed. The order of conviction is maintained. ( 10 ) IN view of my above discussion the revision is partly allowed. The order of conviction is maintained. However, instead of sentencing the revisionists at once to any punishment, it is directed that each of the revisionists will furnish a personal bond of Rs. 2000/- and two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower court and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, the revisionists are allowed three weeks time from today to furnish the bond and the security. They are on bail and will remain so till the expiry of this period. Each of them is further directed to deposit in the trial court within the aforesaid period a sum of Rs. 200/- by way of compensation to Ram Prakash complainant which shall be paid to him on such deposit. In default to comply the above conditions the revision shall stand dismissed and the order of the lower court restored. Revision allowed in part. .