Judgment N. I. TIBREWAL, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi passed on 9th March, 1989 in Criminal Appeal No. 2/87 by which he maintained the conviction and sentences of the petitioners under Section 379 I. P. C. to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- each. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that a case under Section 379 I. P. C. was registered at Police Station Bundi on 15th May, 1977 on the report of one Nand Kishore of Kota. In the said report, it was alleged that his cousin brother, along with his wife and the wife of younger brother were going to Udaipur in a night bus then some persons took away their two boxes, which were placed on the roof of the bus. After registering the case, police recovered the articles from the possession of the accused on their information and after completion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioners and on co-accused Dana Ram. ( 3 ) DURING trial, prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses. No witness was examined indefence. The learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bundi after completion of the trial, found the petitioners guilty for the offence under Sec. 379 I. P. C. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, convicted the petitioners under Section 379 I. P. C. and sentenced to each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/ -. In default of payment of fine, each of the petitioners was to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. The coaccused Dana Ram died during the pendency of the trial as such the proceedings against him were dropped. So far as the recovered articles are concerned, they were directed to be given to Smt. Urmila and Smt. Mala Choudhary vide judgment dated 31st March, 1987. ( 4 ) AN appeal was preferred by the accused petitioners against their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and the same was heard and disposed of by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Bundi. The learned Additional. Sessions Judge also maintained the conviction and sentences of the petitioners and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 9th March, 1989. Hence, this revision petition has been preferred by the accused petitioners. Sessions Judge, Bundi. The learned Additional. Sessions Judge also maintained the conviction and sentences of the petitioners and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 9th March, 1989. Hence, this revision petition has been preferred by the accused petitioners. ( 5 ) I need not discuss the evidence as the learned counsel for the petitioners has frankly and rightly admitted that he cannot challenge the conviction of the petitioners under Section 379 I. P. C. as there is a concurrent finding of both the courts below. I have also gone through the judgments of both the learned courts below and I do not find any infirmity in the judgments as both the courts below have minutely discussed and appreciated the evidence. Therefore, I am of the view that the conviction of the petitioners under Section 379 I. P. C. has been correctly recorded by the trial Magistrate and correctly affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 6 ) THE main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the incident is of the year 1977 and 13 years have already passed since then. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that any of the petitioners has any bad antecedent or previous conviction to his discredit. He further submits that each of the petitioners has already remained in custody for more than three weeks and that it will not be in the interest of justice to send the petitioner again behind the bar. He further submits that there is nothing on record to debar any of the petitioners from getting the benefit of probation and keeping in view the modern trend of the courts below as well as the mandatory provisions contained under Sec. 361 Cr. P. C. the petitioners should be given the benefit of probation either under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offender Act or under Sec. 360 Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor did not seriously oppose in granting probation to the petitioners. However, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that some condition should be imposed on them in order to check their activities. ( 8 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration on the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. However, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that some condition should be imposed on them in order to check their activities. ( 8 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration on the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. As already stated above, the incident is of the year 1977 and more than 13 years have passed since then. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have faced protected trial for about 10 years they had prosecuted their appeal for next three years before they approached this Court. Pendency of criminal proceedings for such a long period is bound to cause serious mental agony and torture, besides physical inconvenience and grant monetary loss. It is also noteworthy that after upholding their conviction and sentences by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, the sentences of the petitioners were suspended on 14th March, 1989 and they have remained in jail from 9-3-89 to 25-3-89. They have also remained in jail for some time during the investigation of the case. ( 9 ) IN a long period of 13 years, several leafs of the life are changed and if the accused-petitioners are sent to jail after 13 years, it will defintely unsettle not only their life but the life of their other family members, who are dependent on them. Besides this, there is nothing on record to suggest that any of the petitioners is either a previous convict or otherwise not entitled to get the benefit of probation. The learned Trial Court has declined the benefit of the probation to the petitioners on the ground that the owners have been deprived from their clothes etc. , which are usable in their routine life for a long period by the act of the accused-petitioners and that keeping in view the manner the theft was committed by them they were not entitled to get the benefit. The learned lower appellate Court declined the benefit of probation to the petitioners on the ground that they belong to Kanjer community and as the members of this community are engaged in commission of theft. ( 10 ) WITH due respect, the grounds given by both the learned courts below are wholly irrelevant for declining the benefit of probation to the petitioners. ( 10 ) WITH due respect, the grounds given by both the learned courts below are wholly irrelevant for declining the benefit of probation to the petitioners. Simply because the petitioners belong to Kanjer community, it can hardly be a ground to decline the benefit of probation when there is nothing on record to show that anyone of them is either a previous convict or has any bad antecedents. On the ground of a particular community, no person can be declined the benefit of probation other wise it amounts to discrimination. The petitioners have been convicted under Sec. 379 I. P. C. and under Sec. 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, they can be released even after admonition. However, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, I am of the view that it is expedient to release all the four petitioners on probation of good conduct, instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I partly allow this revision petition. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under Sec. 379 I. P. C. I think it proper to grant benefit of probation to the petitioners. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioners Gordhan, Sagar Kapuria and Chouthmal shall be released on probation on their entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety of the like amount with the stipulation to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so during a period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The bond shall be submitted within a period of two months in the Trial Court In case the petitioners fail to submit the requisite bonds, the learned Trial Court shall take steps for their arrest to undergo the remaining sentence. ( 12 ) IN this connection I also feel it proper that a copy of the said order should be sent to the District Probation Officer, Bundi with a direction that he should obtain a report about the conduct of the petitioners after every three months and in case they are found violating the conditions of the bail bonds, steps should be taken against them in accordance with law. Petition partly allowed.