JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.Admit on the ground of sentence only. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor made a joint request that this revision petition may be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi under Section 325 and 323 IPC who sentenced him to 1 year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 325 and 3 months Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 323 IPC vide judgment dated 22-9-89. 4. The appeal filed by the petitioner was heard and disposed of by the learned Additional District & Sessions judge, Bundi. The learned Judge maintained the conviction of the petitioner under both the counts but reduced the sentence from 1 year R.I. to 6 months R.I. under Section 325 IPC and from 3 months S.I. under section 323 IPC to 15 days S.I. The sentence of fine was maintained by his judgment dated 27-6-90. 5. On the question of probation, both the courts below have observed that the petitioner is a young man and at the time of incident he was about 25 years of old and he is not a previous convict also. But the probation was declined to the petitioner keeping in view of the serious nature of injury caused by the petitioner to injured Chhota. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also seen the grounds given by the learned courts below for declining the benefit of probation to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to my notice that the petitioner has (illegible) in jail for more than one month after his conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27-6-90 as he was taken in custody, but released on bail on dated 30th July, 1990. 7. Some facts are not in dispute before me namely that the petitioner was 25 years old at the time of incident, it is true that the injuries sustained by injured Chhota is of serious nature and his hand might not be working properly today. 7. Some facts are not in dispute before me namely that the petitioner was 25 years old at the time of incident, it is true that the injuries sustained by injured Chhota is of serious nature and his hand might not be working properly today. In my opinion, it can hardly be a ground for not giving benefit of the probation to the petitioner, especially when he was about 25 years of old at the time of incident and is not a previous convict. In such a case, the complainant should be awarded suitable compensation. 8. Having taken into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the age of the petitioner and the fact that he was not a previous convict, I think it just and proper to give the benefit of probation instead of sending him to jail immediately. 9. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall be released on probation, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-(Five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi with the stipulation that he shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of 1 year. Three months time is granted for submitting the requisite bonds before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner shall deposit Rs. 4,000/- (Four thousand) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi to be paid to the injured Chhota as compensation. The amount shall be deposited within 3 months. In case the petitioner fails to carry out this order, the learned trial court shall take steps against him. *******