JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.Chhitar appellant was convicted under Section 325, IPC and sentenced to one years R. I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default, one months R. I.) for the incident alleged to have taken place on 21.6.1982. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, while not assailing the findings arrived at by the court below on merits, has not argued on the points urged in the memo of appeal, except that of giving the benefit of probation to the appellant. He merely submitted that the trial Court has failed to give any special reasons as required under Section 360, Cr. P.C. for not granting the benefit of probation and further more, whatever the reasons assigned by the trial Court for not granting benefit of probation cannot be held to be proper keeping in view the proposition of law on this aspect of the matter Jaid down in Bishandev v. State of W. B ( AIR 1979 SC 964 ). 3. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, I may state that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant is of a shady past. The incident is of 1982 and after afflux of time from 1982 till date of about 8 years, it would be harsh rather the passage of time would molify the sting which may cause if he is sent behind the bar without dealing with him under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and without assigning special reasons for not granting benefit of probation keeping in view the proposition of the law laid down in Bishandev v. State of W. B. There are no extenuating circumstances on record to hold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the appellant. Thus it is a fit case which should be dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The occurrence had taken place all of a sudden without any premeditation. The appellant is not a person with shady past. 4. The appeal is dismissed so far as the merits are concerned as Mr. S. M. Ali confined his arguments to deal with the case under the Probation of Offenders Act. The occurrence had taken place all of a sudden without any premeditation. The appellant is not a person with shady past. 4. The appeal is dismissed so far as the merits are concerned as Mr. S. M. Ali confined his arguments to deal with the case under the Probation of Offenders Act. Instead of sending the appellant in judicial custody, he is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for one year from the execution of bonds to appear in the trial court when called upon during this period of probation and to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The appellant is allowed three months time to furnish the aforesaid bond, failing which he shall have to surrender before the trial Court to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court. To the above extent, the impugned judgment is modified. The record be sent back forthwith. *******