JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-9-1983 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur City whereby appellants (Bhagirath, Kanhaiya and Babu) have been convicted under Section 325 and 323 with aid of Section 34 IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments as stated therein. 2. At the very out set, the learned counsel for the appellants submit that he does not want to assail the finding of the learned trial Court on the point of conviction and same with that while maintaining the conviction of the appellants they may be released on probation because the learned trial Court nowhere considered the point as to whether the appellants could be given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act or not, when looking to the antecedents and character of the appellants they were entitled to be released on probation. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in case the appellants are given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act he has no objection. 3. I have considered the points raised before me and gone through the entire record. In view of the fact that in this instant case the injured sustained one grievous injury and the injury is proved to have been caused with the common intention of the accused persons. There is a consistent evidence of the prosecution on this point, so I find no ground to interfere in the finding that the appellants are guilty for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. In these circumstances the conviction of the appellants is maintained. 4. A look at the judgment of the learned trial Court shows that the trial Court did not at all consider as to whether the appellants could be released on probation or not. This shows that the learned trial Court might have considered it proper not to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants. So impliedly it may be presumed that the appellants were denied the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. 5. A look at the record shows that in view of the principles laid down in the case reported in AIR 1979 SC p 964, the appellants are entitled to be released on probation. 6. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. So impliedly it may be presumed that the appellants were denied the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. 5. A look at the record shows that in view of the principles laid down in the case reported in AIR 1979 SC p 964, the appellants are entitled to be released on probation. 6. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants is maintained but instead of sending them to jail to serve out the short term impugned sentences the appellants are entitled to be released on probation. Appellants are, therefore, directed that each of them shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Additional District Judge, Gangapur City with this condition that they shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of six months, failing which they shall serve out the sentence passed against them by the trial Court, The bonds are to be furnished within a period of three months. The learned counsel for the appellants undertakes to furnish the said bonds within a period of three months.Benefit of probation given. Appeal partly allowed. *******