JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the judgment dated 31st October 1956 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City. The learned Sessions Judge under the aforesaid judgment was dealing with an appeal filed by the accused petitioner before him against the judgment dated 7th December, 1984 of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur City, Jaipur convicting the accused-petitioner under Section 332 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 5 months rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part and while acquitting the petitioner of the offence under Section 332 IPC., for which he was convicted by the Trial Court, convicted the accused petitioner under Section 353 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine it was ordered that the accused shall suffer two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Mahendra Kumar Gatg P. W. 3 was posted as Assistant Engineer in Workshop Jaipur with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short 'RSEB The accused-petitioner was also working under him in the workshop as Helper. It was the duty of Mahendra Kumar Garg to mark the petitioner present or absent in the Attendance Register. It was alleged that a few days before J 8th November, 1978 Shri Mahendra Kumar Garg had marked the petitioner absent in the Attendance Register and, therefore, on 18th of Nov., 1978 at about 8.30 a. m. when Shri Mahendra Kumar Garg was going from his house to his office on Moped No. RSG 30Q7, the accused-petitioner stopped him on the way and told Shri Garg as to how he could dare marking him absent in the Attendance Register. The accused petitioner also told to Shri Garg that Shri Garg cannot go to the office after marking him (petitioner) absent, The accused-petitioner was also accompanied by two persons and all of them gave beating to Shri Garg who received an injury on his left temporal region, and large number of passengers by were attracted and the accused-petitioner and others made their escape in a tempo. Shri Garg then made a report to the Ex. E. N. The injury of Shri Garg was examined and vide Ex P. 3 it was found that he complained of pain on right temporal region and face right side, outside to eye but no mark of injury was seen. 3. Shri Garg then made a report to the Ex. E. N. The injury of Shri Garg was examined and vide Ex P. 3 it was found that he complained of pain on right temporal region and face right side, outside to eye but no mark of injury was seen. 3. A charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under Section 302 and 353 IPC but a charge only under Section 332 was framed against the accused-petitioner on 13th of June, 1979. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution 10 witnesses, including Shri Garg P W. 2 were examined, and, thereafter the accused-petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and he stands on a plea of denial. The accused-petitioner examined D. W. 1 Sharfuddin who is the real brother of the accused petitioner and who prepared section-windows. He was examined in support of the defence plea that some amount was outstanding for the section-windows made by Sharfuddin and Shri Garg was not paying the same. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not accept this plea and therefore, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced and his appeal was partly accepted and he was convicted under section 353 IPC. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Shri Garg was not discharging his duties and, therefore, while allowing the appeal under Section 332 IPC the learned Appellate Court could not have convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner under Section 353 IPC. In support of his aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Kishan Singh v. Emperor (1928 P.C. 254 ). In that case court has said that if an accused is charged under Section 302 (PC but is convicted under Section 304 and no appeal having been filed by the Government against the acquittal under Section 302 IPC, the High Court cannot convict the accused under Section 302 IPC in revision as it amounts to acquittal of the accused. In that case court has said that if an accused is charged under Section 302 (PC but is convicted under Section 304 and no appeal having been filed by the Government against the acquittal under Section 302 IPC, the High Court cannot convict the accused under Section 302 IPC in revision as it amounts to acquittal of the accused. A look at the aforesaid judgment shows that the High Court had while exercising the powers of revision had converted the sentence of the accused petitioner from Section 324 to Section 302 IPC and the privy Council has said that in view of Section 439, Sub-section (4), that nothing in that section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction the learned Judges of the High Court, who were dealing only with the application for revision had no jurisdiction to convert the learned trial Judges finding of acquittal on the charge of murder into one of conviction of murder. It was. therefore, clear that in the aforesaid case of Kishan Singh v. Emperor the ratio laid down by the Privy Council is that while sitting in revision the Court has no powers to convert a finding of the acquittal into one of conviction. But if the charge is for a major offence and in which the minor offence is also included then there is no difficulty for the trial Court and for the Appellate Court to convict or alter the conviction of the accused in appeal from one major offence to a minor offence. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Trial Court could alter the conviction from Section 332 to Section 3-3 IPC. That part of as perusal of the charge framed against the accused shows that the accused was never charged under Section 353 and only charge under Section 332 was framed. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is implied acquittal of the offence under Section 353 IPC. After having heard, I find no merit in the revision petition. But, there is no previous conviction on record against the accused-petitioner and the incident took place on 18th of November, 1978 and almost 11 years ago. the accused petitioner is the only bread-earner of the family. After having heard, I find no merit in the revision petition. But, there is no previous conviction on record against the accused-petitioner and the incident took place on 18th of November, 1978 and almost 11 years ago. the accused petitioner is the only bread-earner of the family. The offence is such in which benefit of the Probation under Sec ion 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 could be given. 5. Consequently, I hereby partly allow this revision, while maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioner under Section 353 IPC taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case it is hereby directed that the accused petitioner shall be released on his furnishing a personal bond in the sura of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court to appear and receive sentence when called upon during one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. A bear reading of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act will show that if benefit is given under the provisions of that Act then the consequence of it is removal of disqualification attached to conviction. Therefore, with the removal of disqualification attached on conviction it is made clear that this will not come in the way in the service of the petitioner who is the only bread earner of the family. *******